| |
| ▲ | frotaur 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, but that is not a good arguments. Example of unique living organisms include bacteria, tardigrades, or paramecia. | | |
| ▲ | smeej 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes, but none of those are of the human species. A Hunan zygote is a unique living human organism, and I think history has shown us we must at least be very, very careful when we start arguing that some unique living human organisms are different enough from the unique living human organisms that matter that it should be morally acceptable to kill them. Maybe this really is different from all the things about which we've later lamented, "Never again!" but we certainly ought not consider that criterion easily satisfied. | | |
| ▲ | BriggyDwiggs42 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > unique living human organisms are different enough from the unique living human organisms that matter that it should be morally acceptable to kill them I think what we should care about isn’t human life, but human consciousness. A person in a vegetative state doesn’t suffer when you pull the plug. The difference matters and is unmistakable between large organisms which have gone through a long process of development and tiny ones which have not; we should reasonably presume that only one of the two is conscious given no further evidence. The likely response is the potential argument, and I don’t care about that. I care about human suffering. | | |
| ▲ | Thorrez a day ago | parent [-] | | What about someone who is unconscious but will recover? Is it ok the pull the plug on that person? There won't be any suffering (unless friends or relatives mourn, but let's assume this person has no friends or relatives). Regarding the size of the organism, and amount of time spent developing, what about a very early preemie who is unconscious but will recover? | | |
| ▲ | BriggyDwiggs42 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | In both cases I don’t think the plug should be pulled. In the first case, someone already had a complex experience with memories and dreams and whatnot and you’re contributing to them never waking up. The existence at some point in the past still matters. In the second case there’s no reason at all to do something so drastic. Abortion is acceptable only because the mother’s body is being used and damaged, and she should have the right to prevent that use. The preemie doesn’t need to damage someone’s body to exist. Edit: having read some of your other comments, I have a question for you. Why should we care about a zygote and not a sperm and an egg. Why is the act of fertilization the line between simple reproductive cells and a beautiful human life. Both have the potential to make a person, both are genetically human, both likely cannot experience things in a human-like way. | | |
| ▲ | smeej 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Are you genuinely not already aware of the biological difference between a (haploid) gamete and a (diploid) organism? This is like 7th grade science stuff, so I want to understand if you're questioning whether there is a difference or whether the difference matters. Zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, adolescent, and adult are all different stages of the life cycle of a human organism. Gametes are not. Before fertilization, there are gametes. Unless fertilization happens, no organism comes into being. But once it does, it is the same organism from then all the way until its death. This is a biological reality, not a philosophical one. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | WOTERMEON 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | “Never again” has been said in a completely different context: fully developed humans killing other developed humans systematically on a huge scale across years.
Don’t confuse ethnic cleanings and genocide with fully voluntary abortions, as sad as they may be. | | |
| ▲ | Thorrez a day ago | parent [-] | | "Never again" has been said in other contexts as well. E.g. slavery in the US. US slavery didn't exactly meet the definition of ethnic cleansing or genocide. The primary goal was economic. Just because something isn't ethnic cleansing or genocide doesn't mean "never again" doesn't apply. >fully developed humans What's the definition of fully developed? Are physically and mentally disabled people fully developed? There have been large scale killings targeting them in particular. Are babies fully developed? There have been large scale killings that kill them. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | jajko 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I have a different opinion than yours. So what if that's some, very narrow definition of life? If I develop a tumor is it also a life? It certainly behaves so. World is full of human life. West (and not only) manufactures failed wars that killed millions of civilians without a blink of an eye (Vietnam, Iraqs, Afghanistan just to name a few) and sends its own people to death. Where are those life-at-all-costs defenders? Such people are the last to force their own viewpoints on protecting life unto literally everybody else. Yet they feel the most righteous due to whatever fucked up morals they have to spread them and attack everybody who dares to think differently. Another story - very similar people (to the point of calling them often the same) have huge mental barriers unplugging their relatives from life support, in situations when there is 0 chance for any sort of recovery and brain is heavily damaged. Wife is a doctor and most of them are religious freaks, ie italian where we live (nothing against you guys, apart from this). They let their closest people suffer horribly (within the limits of their state) for months or even years, put a massive financial burden on whole society just because they don't feel like signing papers for unplugging already dead person, its just some parts of their body is sort of kept alive. Absolutely deplorable weak 'humans', I have no nice word for those. Suffice to say wife saw her share of such folks during her years in hospitals and it was one of the reasons she moved to private sphere. | | |
| ▲ | Thorrez a day ago | parent [-] | | >So what if that's some, very narrow definition of life? It's not just some definition. It's the scientific definition. Lots of people have the motto "I believe in science" but then reject the scientific definition of life when it comes to humans. >If I develop a tumor is it also a life? It certainly behaves so. Well, we could survey those same biologists. I think they would say no. Does it have DNA of a unique person different from the person it's in? I'm not a biologist, but I think no. >World is full of human life. West (and not only) manufactures failed wars that killed millions of civilians without a blink of an eye (Vietnam, Iraqs, Afghanistan just to name a few) and sends its own people to death. Where are those life-at-all-costs defenders? https://www.solidarity-party.org/ Their 2020 presidential candidate is so life-at-all-costs that his website TLD is life: https://briancarroll.life . >Such people are the last to force their own viewpoints on protecting life unto literally everybody else. Yet they feel the most righteous due to whatever fucked up morals they have to spread them and attack everybody who dares to think differently. I'm not really sure what you're saying here. You say these people are the last to force their viewpoints on protecting life onto other people, but also they aggressively force their viewpoint on protecting life onto other people? That seems like a contradiction to me. |
| |
| ▲ | ookdatnog 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Would you consider a chimera resulting from the fusion of two embryos as two people? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics) | | |
| ▲ | Thorrez a day ago | parent [-] | | I would say it's similar to one person dying and another person getting a ton of transplants from that person. | | |
| ▲ | ookdatnog 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | That does not resolve your problem, it only shuffles it around. You are defending the case that personhood begins at conception, and your argument supporting this case is "It's a unique living organism. A life. Different from a skin cell which isn't a unique organism." If I get a kidney from someone else, and that person dies, according to your own argument, that kidney is a person. These cells are metabolizing and dividing, therefore alive, and they are unique with respect to the rest of my body. Perhaps you'll argue that the kidney isn't an organism because it has no means of reproducing itself. To that I have two counterarguments: - The argument implies that infertile humans are not persons. - Nature contains every horror imaginable, including clonally transmissible cancers [0]. If my body develops such a cancer and it jumps to someone else, then I die, according to your definition my cancer that's colonizing someone else's body is a person. I won't claim to know what defines personhood, but an obvious prerequisite (in the context of human life) is the existence of a centralized nervous system. If I am beheaded, and my headless body is placed on life support while my brain is destroyed, I, as a person, am dead, even if my body is alive. If my brain is surgically removed and placed on life support in a vat, and allowed to interface with the world somehow, then I, as a person, am still alive (whether such a life is worth living is a different question). Accepting this prerequisite resolves the chimera problem, the kidney problem, the infertility problem and the transmissible cancer, and it results in the conclusion that a zygote is not yet a person, as it does not have a nervous system. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_facial_tumour_disease |
|
|
|
