Quote from -shiratori-
A person is a being with conciousness. Anything without conciousness cannot be considered a person because it isn't even aware that it exists.
That is an interesting idea, but it can't be correct, because there are cases where living human beings do not have consciousness, yet we still say they are people. For example, a person who is unconscious, by definition, does not have consciousness, but it's be ridiculous to say that I'm not a person anymore because I passed out. Also, a person in a coma is not conscious, but we still say he/she is a living human being and therefore a person.
Quote from -shiratori-
The usual argument you hear from pro-life advocates is that an embryo, no matter how small it is will eventually grow up into a human being and thus aborting it is immoral. However, this line of thought doesn't need to stop at the fertilization. Potentially every egg and every sperm has the ability to create en embryo. Using this argument is like saying that a woman who is not pregnant every single hour of her life is killing the countless unborn babies that she could have had with her eggs. Thinking like this is madness!
I agree with you 100% on this. Saying that something is a living human being simply because it has the potential to become one is ridiculous. It is not logical, and the proof (well, one way to prove it) is exactly in the examples you gave.
The reason that embryos and fetuses are human beings has absolutely nothing to do with their potential to grow into a larger human being. They are human beings because they have a full set of unique human DNA, they are living rather than inanimate or dead, and they are separate, whole beings rather than a part of another being. (And of course, eggs and sperm are not living human beings, because they do not meet the criteria necessary to be defined as living human beings.)
Quote from Voodoodude
Right and wrong varies depending on the era.
I think that's called relativism (no truth is absolute; all values, ideas, and statements are purely relative (to time, culture, etc.)), a philosophy that was disproved as early as the days of ancient Greece. I'd love to chat about relativism if you want, but I think it's getting beyond the scope of this thread... this thread isn't really supposed to be about which philosophy correctly describes the universe, so please try to stay on topic. (I don't mean to single you out--those who replied about this should please stay on topic as well.) If you're passionate about it though, feel free to make a separate thread about that. (And please let me know if you do, I'd like to join in.)
Quote from Voodoodude
It does not have the organs that constitute a human nor does it exist on the same scale as humans.
The various organs can not be necessary for humanity because they can be replaced either by ones from somebody else or by machinery.
Quote from Voodoodude
nor does it exist on the same scale as humans, humans are generally 1-2m tall, zygotes are measured in micrometers.
I'm shocked that you'd insist on something as trivial as size to be necessary for humanity. "A person's a person, no matter how small," dude.
Quote from Voodoodude
An egg is not a chicken, a caterpillar is not a butterfly, and a dollar is not ten dollars, although in all of these cases the former can become the latter through growth and or time.
I'm glad you brought this up, as it's a common misconception. People will say "an acorn is not a tree," but actually they are misapplying terms regarding stages of development, rather than making a statement about the actual organism, which is their desire. (because "acorn" and "tree" are developmental stages, not different organisms.) Essentially by saying "an acorn is not a tree," you are saying something parallel to "a child is not an adult" (an acorn is a beginning stage of development for certain plants, just as "child" is a beginning stage of development for humans. "tree" is the adult stage for certain plants, just as "adult" is for humans), which of course is true, but it doesn't prove want the speaker intended. For example, a human child is as much a human being as a human adult. So in saying that a human child is not a human adult, the speaker said something true, but hasn't proven that a human child is not a human being, which is what the speaker intended to prove.
For a more thorough explanation of the examples, see below:
a. "an egg is not a chicken." A fertilized egg is the first stage of the chicken' life span, and by "chicken" in the second part, I assume you mean adult chicken. These are stages of development, not different organisms. So you're saying that "a baby chicken is not an adult chicken." Yes, that's true, but a baby chicken (which is inside the fertilized egg) is as much a chicken as an adult chicken.
b. "a caterpillar is not a butterfly." Let's assume we're talking about, say, the swallowtail. The caterpillar is the larval stage for the swallowtail, and the butterfly is the adult stage. SO you're saying that "a swallowtail caterpillar is not a swallowtail butterfly" or "a swallowtail larva is not a swallowtail adult. Yes, that's true, but both the swallowtail caterpillar and the swallowtail butterfly are both swallowtails. You haven't proven that a swallowtail caterpillar isn't a swallowtail, at all.
c. "1 dollar is not 10 dollars." Here's something different altogether. You're not referring to living creatures at all, and also, 1 dollar doesn't physically "grow" into 10 dollars, like living creatures grow. You just get more dollars. So this analogy isn't applicable to any living creatures, let alone humans.
d. "an acorn is not a tree." So we're talking about an oak. An acorn is the baby stage for an oak, and the tree is it's adult stage. So you're saying "a baby oak is not an adult oak." Yes, that's true, but you haven't proven that an acorn is not an oak.
Quote from Voodoodude
With that said, a zygote inside a woman's body can be considered akin to a parasitic organism, a creature that is in fact feasting off of the nutrients of its host.
It's true that a preborn baby has a parasitic relationship with his/her mother, but it not's just any parasite like a mushroom or something. The preborn baby is a living human being also, with as much right to be alive as the mother. So it'll be killing an innocent human being to kill the preborn baby (embryo, fetus, etc.).
Quote from Voodoodude
It is BECAUSE this zygote can become a human that people immediately apply morality and ethics to it and started considering it as a human. When they look at the zygote, they look not at its existence, but it's potential to become and they take a heavily optimistic approach to it.
The argument that something is human because it has the potential to become human is ridiculous, as shiratori correctly says. The reason a zygote is a living human being is because it satisfies the definition of a living human being, as I described earlier.
Quote from Voodoodude
People with with renal failure are dependent on machines to survive, but they were living before they had the renal failure.
So? They can't sustain themselves anymore. Their status in the past is irrelevant, we're talking about their status now. If "living" is defined as being able to sustain oneself, then someone hooked up to a dialysis machine isn't living anymore. How can you say they're living now and still keep with your definition?
Quote from Voodoodude
People who have mental disabilities or are paralyzed are once again alive due to a human invention, society.
But living means being able to sustain oneself. Isn't that what you said you believe? If so, anyone who can't sustain themselves is not living. Why are you making all these new exceptions to your definition?
Quote from Voodoodude
There are also animals in the wild that have babies that are independent from birth, such as the sea turtles.
Okay, so baby turtles are living, then. But baby humans can't survive independently like that, and it's humans we are talking about here.
Quote from Voodoodude
It relates to the baby's ability to natural metabolize food and to ingest food. Are you putting the bottle in its mouth and the baby is sucking, or are you shoving food down its throat and or stomach via a tube? Is the body metabolizing the food itself, or are you metabolizing it through a machine?
You've clarified what you meant by "sustain oneself"--that's totally acceptable. So a baby who can suck & swallow milk by itself, metabolize its own food is living. But again, you forget there are babies (and adults) who can't. There are people who can't control their jaw/throat in order to ingest food (due to paralysis, serious injury, or unconsciousness). They do indeed need a tube to their stomach. There are even people who have serious metabolic problems, or serious gastrointestinal injury and can't metabolize food properly, who need nutrients through IV. Yet we still say those people are living human beings, so your definition, even with the clarification, still can't be correct.
Quote from Voodoodude
You note on human and DNA, we share 90%+ DNA with all living beings in the world. Does that make us a monkey, fly, or wombat?
Certainly not. In order to be human, I specified that the organism must have completely human DNA. The notion of having DNA which is 90% similar being enough to be considered human was in no way included in the definition, as it would indeed be ridiculous.
Quote from Voodoodude
I have tumor that was removed from my body, does that make it human? It certainly has my DNA.
Please look again at point #3 in the definition. A tumor, or any other part of your body is "human" (its made of human cells that have human DNA), but it's certainly not a living human being, because it's just a part of a larger being, "you". Only a part. The proof that it has to be part of you, is that its DNA is not different from yours.
Last edited by lynira at 10:00 pm, Mar 25 2013________________
Manga Cover Database