Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8870 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-17-2018 2:41 PM
284 online now:
Aussie, DrJones*, Meddle, ringo, Son Goku, Stile, Tanypteryx (7 members, 277 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 840,385 Year: 15,208/29,783 Month: 1,152/1,502 Week: 150/492 Day: 24/40 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   Legal Death, Legal Life
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5593
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 16 of 40 (451256)
01-26-2008 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by RAZD
01-26-2008 10:28 PM


Re: Purpose #1: define human life
One of the problems with defining human life is where you draw the line

Whew! Ya think? If you took ten people in a room and asked them separately what they thought constituted life, you'd probably get ten different answers of varying degree.

The problem is like trying to define the precise wavelength where yellow becomes blue

I like the analogy.

The problem I had with this was that this is equivocating on the definition of life and reproduction for a population of organisms to applying it to only one individual. If you were going to do this properly you would need to wait until puberty and the actual ability to reproduce, and this means somewhere between 12 and 19 years old.

Agreed. Moreover, that might inadvertently assume that an infertile man or woman would not be classified as being human. Obviously that would be silly, but in legalese, every single angle in verbiage has to be present.

To my mind this is just as silly as saying life begins at conception because it misses reality (human life before puberty).

Okay, so if I'm understanding you, you are saying that there really is no clear line of demarcation on the level of individuals. That might mean that sonograms and MRI's would have to allow a medical doctor to make that determination. But is that going to work in legal-speak?

For instance, we all know well that some 19 year olds are more mature than some 21 year olds. Yet, the 21 year old is allowed to drink themselves in to a stupor if they were so inclined, where the 19 year old can't legally even take a sip. For the sake of clarity with a clear line of demarcation, the law states that you must be 21 to have an alcoholic beverage.

It doesn't take in to consideration the maturity level on an individualistic level because that would be painstakingly laborious to determine case-by-case. Are we going to run in to this same kind of problem when attempting to define life?


“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 01-26-2008 10:28 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 01-26-2008 11:07 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19567
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 17 of 40 (451258)
01-26-2008 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Hyroglyphx
01-26-2008 10:51 PM


Re: Purpose #1: define human life
Okay, so if I'm understanding you, you are saying that there really is no clear line of demarcation on the level of individuals. That might mean that sonograms and MRI's would have to allow a medical doctor to make that determination. But is that going to work in legal-speak?

Correct, however it would not be necessary for many most people.

Whew! Ya think? If you took ten people in a room and asked them separately what they thought constituted life, you'd probably get ten different answers of varying degree.

And that is why laws should not depend on a single definition, rather they should allow for a plurality of opinions to all be valid and included in a manner that respects different beliefs.

Agreed. Moreover, that might inadvertently assume that an infertile man or woman would not be classified as being human. Obviously that would be silly, but in legalese, every single angle in verbiage has to be present.

Likewise the "life begins at conception" could result in women that had a miscarriage being prosecuted for child abuse, which would then be a miscarriage of justice ...

Enjoy.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-26-2008 10:51 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by bluescat48, posted 02-05-2008 7:46 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19567
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 18 of 40 (453961)
02-04-2008 9:27 PM


Purpose #2: The ethics of stem cell research
Once we have a better understanding of the definition of human life, then we can discuss stem cell research rationally rather than emotionally. Here I want to draw the parallel between terminally ill patients and the frozen embryos left over from fertility clinics, when there is no practical hope for a functioning human life to result from continuing artificial life support.

The definition derived in Message 1 is a definition that is consistent at both extremes of human life, one before a conscious functioning individual human being has developed and one after a conscious functioning individual human being has ceased to exist. Both cases involve certain amounts of cell material that is still living, cases where families may need to make decisions whether or not to continue artificial life support systems. Certainly the legal and ethical basis for this type of decision has been developed for the termination of life, when organs can be transplanted for the benefit of human life. This same ethical and legal basis should apply at the other extreme, as should the abilities of families to apply their particular beliefs to the choices they make.

Fertility Clinics and Stem Cell Research

From Freezing of human sperm, oocytes and embryos:

quote:
Most typically, embryos are frozen 1, 3 or 5 days after the sperm and egg were put together. Freezing is a stressful process for an embryo, and only embryos that are growing well in the laboratory will tolerate the freezing procedure.

Technically at this age these are blastula rather than embryos. Many do not survive the freezing process, but enough are processed that there is usually a large surplus. From In-vitro Fertilization (IVF) Clinics:

quote:
The procedure involves:
  • Giving special medication to the woman that results in the development, growth, and maturation of eggs in a woman's ovaries.
  • Extracting perhaps 24 mature mature ova (aka oocytes) from the woman's ovaries.
  • Fertilizing the ova with sperm, typically from her husband or an anonymous donor.
  • Placing the embryos in a special incubator which encourages their growth.
  • Selecting two to four healthy-looking embryos and implanting them in the woman's uterus.
  • Disposing of the remaining 20 or so surplus embryos in some manner.
The disposal of almost all of the embryos results, or will result, in their death.

The question becomes what should be done with these surplus embryos once they are no longer needed by the families involved.

The implications for stem cell research derive from the legal definition of death used above and the choices faced by the family in regards to sustaining life support systems. Looking to the application of the legal death definition for guidance, we see that families have a choice when they decide to terminate life support of a relative on whether to donate organs for other people or to donate the body to research.

There has also been a survey of fertility clinic patients, Forbes article: Fertility Patients Favor Donating Unused Embryos for Research:

quote:
About half of patients being treated at U.S. fertility clinics say they'd be somewhat or very likely to donate their unused embryos for stem cell research, a new survey finds.

The findings, released early Wednesday by the journal Science, mean that up to 10 times as many embryos would be available for research than previously estimated, should U.S. legislators ever permit their wider use.

That number increased to 60 percent when the question referred specifically to stem cell research and research aimed at developing treatments for human disease or infertility.

Other options, such as having the embryos destroyed or donating them to another infertile couple, seemed less attractive.


The Science article: Willingness to Donate Frozen Embryos for Stem Cell Research

quote:
Moral concerns about the primary source of stem cells, human embryos, have prompted one of the most contentious public debates in the history of biomedical science. Following the announcement of a restriction of U.S. federal funding to research with about 20 cell lines isolated from embryos before August 2001 (1) and, more recently, a presidential veto upholding this restriction (2), there has been a clear message from the scientific community that the eligible lines are not only inadequate in number but also unsafe for translational research. There is also mounting evidence that American scientists are losing ground to other countries with less restrictive policies (3). Further, surveys of the American public indicate that there is widespread support for embryonic stem cell (ES cell) research that cuts across political, religious, and socioeconomic lines, with approval estimated at 66% of the public overall (4).

A total of 1244 patients returned the survey, for a 60% response rate overall [63% for women, 51% for nongestating partners (male or female)]; surveys were sent to only one member of a couple. We made clear at the outset that the embryo is destroyed if used for research.

Of the 1020 respondents who reported that they have embryos currently stored, 495 (49%) indicated that they were somewhat or very likely to donate their embryos for research purposes. These 495 individuals controlled the disposition of from 2000 to 3050 embryos.

Respondents to the survey expressed even greater willingness to donate embryos to research when certain characteristics of the research were specified. In particular, the percentage reporting that they would be somewhat or very likely to donate increased from 49% for medical research (in general) to 60% for research in which stem cells are derived.


The preferred alternative to keeping embryos forever, or disposing of them, therefore, is for them to be used for medical research aimed at improving human life.

Ethically there should be no question that allowing the use of cellular material from an embryo is a question that should be left to the family to decide, as this is the same as the situation at the end of life when there is no practical hope for a functioning human life to result from continuing artificial life support.

There is no ethical question on the use of adult stem cells for research, and with the ethical question of legal life being resolved, there can be no ethical question on the use of embryonic stem cell research: in both cases the materials are donated to research by the "appropriate surrogates" - the families involved.

Conclusion

Using the definition of human life proposed here we can provide the same ethical treatment regarding the question of life and death for frozen embryos as we currently use for terminal patients, and allow families to decide what is best for their families.

This allows us to evaluate whether using surplus embryos from fertility clinics for stem cell research is ethical based on the existing criteria: the same conditions apply, that families are faced with the decision to

  • continue artificial life support with no practical hope for a functioning human life to result from continuing such support,
  • halting life support and letting the remaining cells, tissues, etc. that are being kept alive artificially to expire naturally, or
  • donating material (cells, tissues, etc) for medical research or to use for transplants.

From the survey above we see that, just as we see with the end of life, different families will make different decisions.

Letting the families concerned make the decisions on what to do with the surplus embryos meets the needs for a plurality of beliefs to be accommodated within our society, in the same way that it is for terminally ill patients, and it meets the same ethical demands of each of those families.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : sp


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2110 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 19 of 40 (454009)
02-05-2008 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by RAZD
01-26-2008 11:07 PM


Re: Purpose #1: define human life
RAZD
Letting the families concerned make the decisions on what to do with the surplus embryos meets the needs for a plurality of beliefs to be accommodated within our society, in the same way that it is for terminally ill patients, and it meets the same ethical demands of each of those families.

Excellent idea. This is one time when an idealogical idea is also the most logical.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 01-26-2008 11:07 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 617 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 20 of 40 (454025)
02-05-2008 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by bluescat48
01-26-2008 8:22 PM


Problem with definition
bluescat48 writes:

RAZD
This would in effect make the point of "uniform life" to be the earliest possible point at which assisted premature birth would be medically feasible without causing significant effect on the end result.

Brilliant, best definition of life I've ever heard.

I see a problem with it, though. It's this: as medical science progresses, the point at which assisted premature birth is medically feasible will move back further and further until a point is reached where it is medically feasible to fertilize an egg outside the womb and keep it there, in an artificial incubator. It may become possible to let a fertilized egg grow into a baby without the need for it ever to be born. In that case, the fertilized egg would constitute a viable human being to which the definition applies.

Even if the scenario described above proves to be ultimately impossible after all, the fact remains that medical science is still progressing at the moment and that we have not reached its limits yet.


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by bluescat48, posted 01-26-2008 8:22 PM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by bluescat48, posted 02-05-2008 2:10 PM Parasomnium has responded
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 02-06-2008 4:47 PM Parasomnium has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2110 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 21 of 40 (454081)
02-05-2008 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Parasomnium
02-05-2008 8:42 AM


Re: Problem with definition
Parasomnium
I see a problem with it, though. It's this: as medical science progresses, the point at which assisted premature birth is medically feasible will move back further and further until a point is reached where it is medically feasible to fertilize an egg outside the womb and keep it there, in an artificial incubator. It may become possible to let a fertilized egg grow into a baby without the need for it ever to be born. In that case, the fertilized egg would constitute a viable human being to which the definition applies.

I agree if such a situation were to occur , but as for now I would still agree with RAZD.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Parasomnium, posted 02-05-2008 8:42 AM Parasomnium has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Parasomnium, posted 02-05-2008 5:08 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

    
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 617 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 22 of 40 (454125)
02-05-2008 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by bluescat48
02-05-2008 2:10 PM


Re: Problem with definition
Bluescat,

What I meant to say with my last paragraph was that the boundary is shifting as we speak. Tomorrow, a medical lab may announce a new breakthrough that makes it possible for a child to be born even more prematurely than is possible today.

In other words: the definition implies a sell-by date for the determined boundary. That's what makes it less valid as a definition in my view.


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by bluescat48, posted 02-05-2008 2:10 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 02-06-2008 4:37 PM Parasomnium has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3236
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 23 of 40 (454326)
02-06-2008 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
01-16-2008 10:14 PM


Re: Purpose #1: define human life
I know you've already moved on, but I just read this now, sorry.

I like the idea of describing when life begins by using the reciprocal of the definition of death.

I think there's a problem, though, but it may just be a nitpick.

UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF DEATH ACT
§ 1. [Determination of Death.] An individual who has sustained either
(1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or
(2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, are dead.
A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.

UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF LIFE
§ 1. [Determination of Life.] An individual who has sustained either:
(1) irreversible instigation of circulatory and respiratory functions, and
(2) irreversible instigation of any functions of the (entire) brain, including the brain stem, is alive.
A determination of life should be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.

My problem is with the use of the term "irreversible" in both definitions. I don't think it should be in the determination of life. With death it makes sense, since at any time if a person is "alive" again, the death wasn't really death, but maybe some sort of stasis or whatever.

Irreversible cessation implys they aren't coming back to life.

But it doesn't make sense with the determination of life. All life is always reversible. From a still-born baby to an old man who dies in his sleep. Sort of how you switched "or" and "all" to "and" and "any", I think irreversible needs to be replaced with something that signifies how life is present only while those features are present.

Irreversible instigation implys they aren't losing the status of life. Which is, well, obviously flawed.

I'd recommend changing the words "irreversible instigation" to simply "existence" to have:

UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF LIFE
§ 1. [Determination of Life.] An individual who has sustained both:
(1) existence of circulatory and respiratory functions, and
(2) existence of any functions of the (entire) brain, including the brain stem, is alive.
A determination of life should be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.

This does, however, leave any time when a person is in a state of 'stasis' (dead, but comes back to life eventually) in which they are undefined.

But I like that issue better than saying life is irreversible.

Edited by Stile, : Fixing formatting

Edited by Stile, : More format errors because I'm not so bright


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 01-16-2008 10:14 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 02-06-2008 4:07 PM Stile has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19567
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 24 of 40 (454355)
02-06-2008 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Stile
02-06-2008 11:59 AM


Re: Purpose #1: define human life -- refining the definition
Thanks, Stile.

My problem is with the use of the term "irreversible" in both definitions. I don't think it should be in the determination of life. With death it makes sense, ...

I see what you mean: I also have a little trouble with "sustained" in the life version. Perhaps we should look at the whole phrase and the logical inversion of "sustained irreversible cessation" to see where we need to go. We can state these two different conditions simply as follows:

  • to be dead you must have lost (1) blood circulation and respiration, or (2) all brain activity.

  • to be alive you must posses (1) blood circulation and respiration, and (2) some brain activity.

Perhaps in place of "sustained irreversible cessation" we could use something like "experiences continued operation":

UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF (human) LIFE (rev 1):
1. [Determination of Life.] An individual who experiences both:
(1) the continued operation of circulatory and respiratory functions, and
(2) the continued operation of any functions of the (entire) brain, including the brain stem, is alive.
A determination of life should be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.

How does that work for you?

This does, however, leave any time when a person is in a state of 'stasis' (dead, but comes back to life eventually) in which they are undefined.

If they come back to life then it wasn't (by definition ) irreversible death, so the question is whether they qualify as (human) life while in that state of stasis, where either end is possible but the current status is indeterminate.

Personally, I like the idea of a gray area between life and death, when no hard and fast definition can call it one way or the other, but where there are two "Rubicons" to cross to set the issue to rest, one into (human) life and one into (no longer human) death.

Note that we are also talking about determining the (implied but not explicitly stated) instigation point of distinctly human life as opposed to just cellular life, or the life of some other type of organism. Thus included in a complete definition of "human life" is some (stated rather than assumed) minimum definition of what it is to be human, as opposed to some other form of living cells (an organ say), or some other type of organism (a chimpanzee say). This is where you get into the concept of "personhood" and ways to decide how human is human life.

Enjoy.

Edited by Zen Deist, : symbols


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Stile, posted 02-06-2008 11:59 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Stile, posted 02-06-2008 4:25 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3236
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 25 of 40 (454357)
02-06-2008 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by RAZD
02-06-2008 4:07 PM


Sounds good to me
UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF (human) LIFE (rev 1):
§ 1. [Determination of Life.] An individual who experiences both:
(1) the continued operation of circulatory and respiratory functions, and
(2) the continued operation of any functions of the (entire) brain, including the brain stem, is alive.
A determination of life should be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.

RAZD writes:

How does that work for you?

Sounds good. Definitely removed my issue, anyway.

Personally, I like the idea of a gray area between life and death, when no hard and fast definition can call it one way or the other, but where there are two "Rubicons" to cross to set the issue to rest, one into (human) life and one into (no longer human) death.

Again, I agree. I like that area of "has it been too long for them to be brought back?" I especially like the idea that this amount of time is unknown, and hopefully we can continue to develop ways in which to increase it.

I'm not sure if it's relevent or not, but the definition of Death also implys that Life was "on" at some point. That is, it's not so much a strict opposite sense as it is a one-thing-follows-the-other-eventually type deal. Although this point probably blends in with your point that we're talking distinctly about human life, in which case, I think this must be implicitly understood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 02-06-2008 4:07 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19567
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 26 of 40 (454360)
02-06-2008 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Parasomnium
02-05-2008 5:08 PM


Re: Problem with definition of death and life
In other words: the definition implies a sell-by date for the determined boundary. That's what makes it less valid as a definition in my view.

You would also have a definition that depends on the level of medical technology available to the individuals (think rich vs poor in a free market country or between countries).

And you already have this moving target and technology dependent definition working at the end of life. It is becoming increasingly possible to keep a body with a working functioning and conscious brain alive through artificial respiration AND circulation. Technically this would meet the Uniform Definition of Death, yet we would hardly rush to pull the plug when the mind is fully conscious.

When we look at the definition of human life as necessarily including a functioning conscious brain rather than the level of cellular life that is being maintained -- the issue of "personhood" -- then, perhaps, the definition of human life -- what it means to be human -- will be clearer.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Parasomnium, posted 02-05-2008 5:08 PM Parasomnium has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19567
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 27 of 40 (454364)
02-06-2008 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Parasomnium
02-05-2008 8:42 AM


Re: Problem with definition - taken to the extreme point, at both ends
I see a problem with it, though. It's this: as medical science progresses, the point at which assisted premature birth is medically feasible will move back further and further until a point is reached where it is medically feasible to fertilize an egg outside the womb and keep it there, in an artificial incubator.

However that fertilized egg will not have a respiratory system, a circulatory system or any part of a brain, so there is a limit to the definition.

Just as our ability to extend the life with medical care we would take this as an increased ability to prolong the length of life, and the question will increasingly become more one of what is the quality of that life independent of the medical reality.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Parasomnium, posted 02-05-2008 8:42 AM Parasomnium has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19567
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 28 of 40 (827557)
01-27-2018 7:36 PM


from facebook
This:

I dont believe I am the one missing the point. Treating an elderly person in which you can have certainty of his or her future is quite different than an embryo or fetus. The argument of equating the two seems to be made of straw. Science has made it possible to know if a fully developed human is there or could be there after recovery. This is not so with an embryo or fetus. At least not with any certainty. Whether a womans body is capable of nurturing an embryo or fetus should never be brought into the discussion of abortion. Nor does it in any way change the scientific definition of human or alive. This exactly where a womans right to control her body has every bit of validity. Demeaning what a zygote is is useless. How about we focus on the fact that its quite irrelevant what people think is human life. It is human life. Women just arent obligated to invite it into her body if she doesnt want to. Quite simple.

Im not ignoring anything. Im simply sticking to the point. Scientifically speaking, its human. Scientifically speaking, its alive. Youve just now moved the goal post to unborn human in the womb.

Since we are clearing up facts- a zygote is an embryo. A single cell embryo to be exact. And it is still called an embryo once its in the womb. For the first two months. So yes, women very often consider this an unborn child.

Im not certain as to why you think Im ignoring the fact that a zygote is not a baby who is able to crawl or breath. And Im curious as to how you define a grown human being. And Im curious as to where youll be placing the goal post this time....

Pointing out the fragility of a zygote proves absolutely nothing. Its just a way for people to devalue it. And a way for people to pretend its neither human nor alive. Do you really need to? Do women really need to have a reason to say theyd rather not invite pregnancy into their body? Are we really left with having Bill Nye give bogus science lessons which have little basis in scientific reality in order to defend our right to our own body? These conversations are a whole lot easier when women choose to own up to reality. Yes its human life. No, you dont have to invite it into your body. Its yours.. stop making women feel like they need Bill Nye to redefine science- because if he doesnt, they should feel bad about preventing pregnancy from happening.

And no sir- not just late term abortions involve dismemberment. Even first trimester abortions are dismembering. Unless of course they are having a chemical abortion. But a D&C which is not a late term option, is in fact dismembering the fetus.

Only when women can actually know the facts, confront reality, and have honest discussion will they be able to learn what they need to learn, and make intellectually honest decisions that they wont regret in their future. But holding their hand and telling them its just a clump of cells that isnt actually human life is a horrible disservice to them. In soooo many ways.

To be edited for reply.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19567
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 29 of 40 (827558)
01-27-2018 7:41 PM


from facebook
This from person on facebook, regarding life, human life and personhood.

Yes I am the same person you responded to on facebook. This thread is old, but the argument is still valid.

I dont believe I am the one missing the point. Treating an elderly person in which you can have certainty of his or her future is quite different than an embryo or fetus. The argument of equating the two seems to be made of straw. Science has made it possible to know if a fully developed human is there or could be there after recovery. This is not so with an embryo or fetus. At least not with any certainty. Whether a womans body is capable of nurturing an embryo or fetus should never be brought into the discussion of abortion. Nor does it in any way change the scientific definition of human or alive. This exactly where a womans right to control her body has every bit of validity. Demeaning what a zygote is is useless. How about we focus on the fact that its quite irrelevant what people think is human life. It is human life. Women just arent obligated to invite it into her body if she doesnt want to. Quite simple.

Im not ignoring anything. Im simply sticking to the point. Scientifically speaking, its human. Scientifically speaking, its alive. Youve just now moved the goal post to unborn human in the womb.

Since we are clearing up facts- a zygote is an embryo. A single cell embryo to be exact. And it is still called an embryo once its in the womb. For the first two months. So yes, women very often consider this an unborn child.

Im not certain as to why you think Im ignoring the fact that a zygote is not a baby who is able to crawl or breath. And Im curious as to how you define a grown human being. And Im curious as to where youll be placing the goal post this time....

Pointing out the fragility of a zygote proves absolutely nothing. Its just a way for people to devalue it. And a way for people to pretend its neither human nor alive. Do you really need to? Do women really need to have a reason to say theyd rather not invite pregnancy into their body? Are we really left with having Bill Nye give bogus science lessons which have little basis in scientific reality in order to defend our right to our own body? These conversations are a whole lot easier when women choose to own up to reality. Yes its human life. No, you dont have to invite it into your body. Its yours.. stop making women feel like they need Bill Nye to redefine science- because if he doesnt, they should feel bad about preventing pregnancy from happening.

And no sir- not just late term abortions involve dismemberment. Even first trimester abortions are dismembering. Unless of course they are having a chemical abortion. But a D&C which is not a late term option, is in fact dismembering the fetus.

Only when women can actually know the facts, confront reality, and have honest discussion will they be able to learn what they need to learn, and make intellectually honest decisions that they wont regret in their future. But holding their hand and telling them its just a clump of cells that isnt actually human life is a horrible disservice to them. In soooo many ways.

So that's your argument. Let's break it down for discussion:

... Treating an elderly person in which you can have certainty of his or her future ...

What certainty?

... is quite different than an embryo or fetus. The argument of equating the two seems to be made of straw. ...

or it isn't any different and you are just making assumptions. See "Legal Death, Legal Life" Message 1 (http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&m=449158#m449158) for clarification.

... Science has made it possible to know if a fully developed human is there or could be there after recovery. This is not so with an embryo or fetus. At least not with any certainty. ...

While I admire your faith in science, I think you may give too much credit in one case and not enough in the other: in some cases one can be more sure in the case of malformed incomplete embryos than an elderly patient. The ability / right to make that decision should lie totally with the family.

... Whether a womans body is capable of nurturing an embryo or fetus should never be brought into the discussion of abortion. ...

Totally wrong. The life of the mother is paramount. It is a known quantity, while the embryo or fetus could end up miscarrying.

... . Nor does it in any way change the scientific definition of human or alive. ...

Which definitions are those? Can you give them complete with scientific reference?

Let me help by observing that "life" is not created by forming a zygote, that is two living cells merging into one living cell. So the real question is what is "human" ... give it a shot.

... This exactly where a womans right to control her body has every bit of validity. ...

Agreed. The immediate family is the only forum to discuss the issue with the woman holding a veto.

... Demeaning what a zygote is is useless. ...

Calling a spade a spade is not demeaning it. Calling it a steamshovel is preposterous hyperbole...

... How about we focus on the fact that its quite irrelevant what people think is human life. It is human life. ...

Nope. It is life, yes (the lineage of life is not interrupted or started), but it has yet to become a human being, it is just a single cell, hardly different from a skin cell or a stomach cell.

... Women just arent obligated to invite it into her body if she doesnt want to. Quite simple.

Indeed. Nor are they obligated to house an uninvited guest in their body, or a guest who has outlived their welcome. If they don't want to. Very simple.

Im not ignoring anything. Im simply sticking to the point. Scientifically speaking, its human ...

Curiously, this is where I need your definition for what is human: specifically how is a zygote different from a skin cell.

Also see Message 18 of "Legal Death, Legal Life" (http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&m=453961#m453961) for another aspect where this definition becomes important.

Scientifically speaking -- in my experience -- says it is not human: a zygote has no brain, no lungs, no heart. Again see "Legal Death, Legal Life" Message 1 (http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&m=449158#m449158) for a definition of when a human life begins.

... Youve just now moved the goal post to unborn human in the womb.

ahhh ... nope. You are the one trying to turn a single cell into a human being with false nomenclature.

Since we are clearing up facts- a zygote is an embryo. A single cell embryo to be exact. ...

Wrong again. A zygote is a single cell. It becomes a blastula by cell division, making a ball of undifferentiated cells. An embryo is the beginning of the fetus, but in many cases the embryo never develops and what is left is an empty sac pregnancy.

The proper medical definitions are rather specific and a quick reference can be found at http://www.genefaith.org/...bases/resources/humdevchart.html

Equivocating and conflating definitions does not make a valid or strong argument.

... And it is still called an embryo once its in the womb. For the first two months. ...

This is partly right and partly wrong. The term embryo only applies to the stage of development between blastula and fetus. Usually between week 2 and week 8. It's not an embryo until after the second week.

... So yes, women very often consider this an unborn child.

There is no such thing as "an unborn child" medically speaking. This is you appealing to emotion rather than referring to facts ... and, curiously, you were the one who said: " ... How about we focus on the fact that its quite irrelevant what people think is human life."

Women also will say "I am pregnant, I am going to have a baby" ... ie it's not a baby yet.

Im not certain as to why you think Im ignoring the fact that a zygote is not a baby who is able to crawl or breath. ...

Because that is what you mean or intend by "unborn child" - that is the image you want to convey with your appeal to emotion (logical fallacy) argument.

... And Im curious as to how you define a grown human being. ...

See "Legal Death, Legal Life" Message 1 (http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&m=449158#m449158) for my definition of human life. A "grown human being" would be capable of independent survival (occurs about 9 years of age), while an adult human would be ~18 years old. The relevance of this to development from zygote to blastula to embryo to fetus escapes me.

... And Im curious as to where youll be placing the goal post this time....

Curiously, I use medical definitions, not goal posts.

Pointing out the fragility of a zygote proves absolutely nothing. ...

Pointing out that ~75% of zygotes never become human beings proves that the idea of an "unborn child" beginning with conception is a falsehood. The development never got that far.

... ts just a way for people to devalue it. ...

No, it's a way to put it in proper perspective.

... And a way for people to pretend its neither human nor alive. ...

Alive yes, a human being not yet. If ever. Just facts, not pretending.

... Do you really need to? ...

Oh I think it is quite important to discuss the facts before any decisions are made. Certainly one should not rely on emotion or opinion.

... Do women really need to have a reason to say theyd rather not invite pregnancy into their body? ...

or to keep an uninvited guest or one who has outgrown their welcome ...

What they need is the right to decide for themselves the pros and the cons based on the best evidence available to them, in consultation with their physician and their immediate family.

Just as applies to the termination of life for an elderly person on life support.

... Are we really left with having Bill Nye give bogus science lessons which have little basis in scientific reality ...

Curiously I saw no scientifically invalid comments in the video. Calling it bogus without any explanation is rather presumptuous when you have not established any scientific credentials of your own, and you have made several errors regarding scientific facts.

... in order to defend our right to our own body? ...

Nope, but access good medical science facts, knowledge and advice should be readily available.

... These conversations are a whole lot easier when women choose to own up to reality. ...

The complete package and not one using emotional appeals and false nomenclature.

... Yes its human life. ...

Or it's just some living cells that may or may not result in a human life, even if they are provided a healthy support environment.

Weren't you just advocating owning up to reality?

... No, you dont have to invite it into your body. ...

Or keep an uninvited guest or one that has outgrown it's welcome.

... Its yours.. stop making women feel like they need Bill Nye to redefine science- because if he doesnt, they should feel bad about preventing pregnancy from happening.

Nor to make women feel bad for terminating a pregnancy. It is their body, it is their decision.

And no sir- not just late term abortions involve dismemberment. Even first trimester abortions are dismembering. Unless of course they are having a chemical abortion. ...

At three months it is ~6" long and unable to survive on its own.

... But a D&C which is not a late term option, is in fact dismembering the fetus.

It is not even an abortion: https://www.webmd.com/...de/d-and-c-dilation-and-curettage#1

A D&C is done after a miscarriage or an abortion.

Only when women can actually know the facts, confront reality, and have honest discussion will they be able to learn what they need to learn, and make intellectually honest decisions that they wont regret in their future. But holding their hand and telling them its just a clump of cells that isnt actually human life is a horrible disservice to them. In soooo many ways.

But holding their hand and guilt-shaming them with misinformation and faulty nomenclature and misrepresented science is good for them?

Women need to know ALL the facts, the actual medical facts, with no bias or misrepresentations or emotional appeals. They can decide what is involved only when they have ALL the facts and the freedom to exercise their right to decide what to do with their body.

Enjoy

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

RAZD writes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

Edited by RAZD, : response.

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2018 10:49 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19567
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 30 of 40 (827709)
01-30-2018 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by RAZD
01-27-2018 7:41 PM


waiting for new member approval ...
Apparently the person who posted what is quoted in Message 28 on facebook has applied for membership here but has not been confirmed.

So we have to wait for an answer.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2018 7:41 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Pressie, posted 01-31-2018 7:06 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 33 by Stile, posted 01-31-2018 10:14 AM RAZD has responded

  
Prev1
2
3Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018