D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?
 

David Sklansky:

In this thread, you maintain that abortion is murder, since the embryo is a person. You are the second intelligent atheist I've seen make this claim, yet when questioned as to how you came to this conclusion, there are hardly any replies, and the ones that are given seem to skirt the question.

I would like to know why you think an embryo is a person? What characteristics/criteria denote personhood (and, presumeably, how does an embryo have those)? Lastly, what criteria do you think medical science should use to denote when personhood ends (ie: death), and what objections would you have in using that same criteria to denote when personhood beings? (That last question is most important.)

We have discussed this in some depth in this thread, and I introduced some definitions that I'd like to use in order that we might not misunderstand each other:

hu·man
n.
A member of the genus H0mo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

adj.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans

life | a·live
n. / adj.
The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

per·son
n.
1. A living human.
2. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
3. A human or organization with legal rights and duties.

So, to summarize:

Anything with human DNA is "human" (by the 2nd definition). Any living cell is "alive". A zygote, therefore, is a living human cell. A person is a living human with the right to life.

Re: D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?
 

Kip, while you're waiting for DS. Don't you think the commonest flaw in how this discussion is framed is confusing 'human' with 'person'? Other obvious factors aside.

Re: D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you think the commonest flaw in how this discussion is framed is confusing 'human' with 'person'?

[/ QUOTE ]

This skirts the issue hardcore. So let's say we can come up with legitimate reasons to distinguish between 'humans' and 'people'. Now, do laws prohibiting murder protect all 'humans', or just 'people'? And which should they do? Coming up with these distinctions doesn't solve anything, in my opinion, it just rephrases the question.

Re: D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?
 

[ QUOTE ]
So let's say we can come up with legitimate reasons to distinguish between 'humans' and 'people'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Societies have and use them all the time,and quite consistantly, as I suspect you actually do. It's a very important distinction to make.

Building collapses - "Did any of the people survive?" By your claim that they are equivalent terms, then I have to answer, "yes", because there are human bodies in there. But I've always assumed the questioner wanted to know if the Person(s) survived and I'd answer "No" if all there was left was human arms, human legs, or whole humans but now without the person still using the body.

I'd love to hear DS use clearly defined terms in a restatement of his argument. DS will use them however he wants in making his case, but if he uses them, as you are suggesting, in a sense that there are no "legitimate reasons to distinguish" then I will stick to just reading his poker comments.

Re: D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?
 

An embryo will become a person if you let it. That's why I think that it is wrong to kill it. You are preventing a life from continuing its development to the point where it can be born.

I guess that makes me the third intelligent atheist to hold that view. In case you doubt my intelligence, I will let you know that I am an honours engineering/mathematics student.

Re: D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?
 

[ QUOTE ]
An embryo will become a person if you let it. That's why I think that it is wrong to kill it. You are preventing a life from continuing its development to the point where it can be born.

I guess that makes me the third intelligent atheist to hold that view. In case you doubt my intelligence, I will let you know that I am an honours engineering/mathematics student.

[/ QUOTE ]

A sperm will become a person if you let it. Therefore, it is wrong to spill seed.

Re: D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?
 

[ QUOTE ]
An embryo will become a person if you let it. That's why I think that it is wrong to kill it. You are preventing a life from continuing its development to the point where it can be born.

I guess that makes me the third intelligent atheist to hold that view. In case you doubt my intelligence, I will let you know that I am an honours engineering/mathematics student.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any doubts to your intelligence would arise from your belief that your position is the same as the first two IA's, or that your view is contrary to the question as posed, not from your academic credentials :-)

Re: D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An embryo will become a person if you let it. That's why I think that it is wrong to kill it. You are preventing a life from continuing its development to the point where it can be born.

I guess that makes me the third intelligent atheist to hold that view. In case you doubt my intelligence, I will let you know that I am an honours engineering/mathematics student.

[/ QUOTE ]

A sperm will become a person if you let it. Therefore, it is wrong to spill seed.

[/ QUOTE ]

A sperm by itself cannot become a person simply by letting it grow, you also need an egg.

Since an embryo is a fertilized egg, if you leave it be, it will eventually grow into a human being. The same cannot be said for either a single sperm or ovum.

Re: D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An embryo will become a person if you let it. That's why I think that it is wrong to kill it. You are preventing a life from continuing its development to the point where it can be born.

I guess that makes me the third intelligent atheist to hold that view. In case you doubt my intelligence, I will let you know that I am an honours engineering/mathematics student.

[/ QUOTE ]

A sperm will become a person if you let it. Therefore, it is wrong to spill seed.

[/ QUOTE ]

A sperm by itself cannot become a person simply by letting it grow, you also need an egg.

Since an embryo is a fertilized egg, if you leave it be, it will eventually grow into a human being. The same cannot be said for either a single sperm or ovum.

[/ QUOTE ]


welp, that's a wrap folks!

Re: D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An embryo will become a person if you let it. That's why I think that it is wrong to kill it. You are preventing a life from continuing its development to the point where it can be born.

I guess that makes me the third intelligent atheist to hold that view. In case you doubt my intelligence, I will let you know that I am an honours engineering/mathematics student.

[/ QUOTE ]

A sperm will become a person if you let it. Therefore, it is wrong to spill seed.

[/ QUOTE ]

A sperm by itself cannot become a person simply by letting it grow, you also need an egg.

Since an embryo is a fertilized egg, if you leave it be, it will eventually grow into a human being. The same cannot be said for either a single sperm or ovum.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it is a matter of degree, not a qualitative difference. The sperm is an object that requires certain influences to become a human. The zygote is an object that requires certain influences to become a person, it just happens that the influences in the latter case require much less effort. Or, from another perspective, it could be viewed that people take certain actions to prevent the development of a person in both cases, it's just greater in the case of a zygote.

Putting on a condom, for example, is an action one would take to prevent the existence of a person. It is an active interference of a natural course of action, and often done with the specific intent of preventing the existence of a person. Your statement must also argue against birth control if it is to be consistent.

Re: D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An embryo will become a person if you let it. That's why I think that it is wrong to kill it. You are preventing a life from continuing its development to the point where it can be born.

I guess that makes me the third intelligent atheist to hold that view. In case you doubt my intelligence, I will let you know that I am an honours engineering/mathematics student.

[/ QUOTE ]

A sperm will become a person if you let it. Therefore, it is wrong to spill seed.

[/ QUOTE ]

A sperm by itself cannot become a person simply by letting it grow, you also need an egg.

Since an embryo is a fertilized egg, if you leave it be, it will eventually grow into a human being. The same cannot be said for either a single sperm or ovum.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you leave an embryo be, it will wither and die.

You need to add stuff to it (like nutrients), just like you have to add stuff to a sperm. It's a difference of degree, not kind.

Re: D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Since an embryo is a fertilized egg, if you leave it be, it will eventually grow into a human being.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like the other replies to your comment, but wanted to add one thing. (I am assuming that by "human being" you mean "person" as defined above.)

You are arguing that a zygote will grow into a person. Implying that it is not a person right now. That's fine. I agree (for the most part - since it's no guarantee that it definitely will, but it is likely).

But potential people are not people, and do not have the right to life. Every cell in my body is a potential person -- it just needs a little genetic engineering to eventually become a clone of me. Obviously, though, my cells do not have their own right to life -- I can choose to kill any of them without being convicted of murder.

So, like luckyme said, this thread is not directed at your view -- that a zygote is a potential person. We could have a different discussion (in a different thread, preferably), about the value of potential persons (e.g. zygotes), and what legal rights we should grant them. This thread is directed at the atheistic view that an embryo IS a person, and therefore has the right to life.

I await D.Sklansky's response. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?
 

While we are all anxiously awaiting D.Sklansky's reply, I thought I'd post a few summary clips from the other intelligent atheist's comments on abortion:

[ QUOTE ]
The first, central, and indispensable issue regarding abortion is whether the fetus is a person. Issues regarding the woman's "choice" or other such euphemisms need not, and cannot, be considered until the fetus' status is resolved. If the fetus is nothing more than a wart, tumor or similar aggregation of cells, there is no moral question involved. Nobody disputes a woman's right to remove the growth under those circumstances, and it would be silly to frame the debate in terms of "choice" if that were all that were involved. However, if the fetus is a person, then the woman's "choice" is restricted in the same way it would be were she considering the killing of any other person: an abortion would be permissible only if her life was endangered.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You would not notice the difference, today, had you been killed yesterday, last week, a year ago, ten years ago, as newborn, or in the womb. But it would have been you that would have been killed, nonetheless, had the killing occurred at any moment after your identity was genetically determined.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I am anti-abortion and anti-choice not because I believe in God, but because I don't.

I don't believe that God installs an eternal soul into every person at conception. I don't believe in eternal souls at all. If they did exist, abortion wouldn't matter. The soul could simply reunite with God, or find another body to inhabit. Murder wouldn't matter, either, for the same reason.

But I do believe that my genetic, mathematical identity was set at conception. That is not some fantasy or superstition. To have destroyed that clump of cells would have destroyed me, forever, and my only chance at existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
It would equally be a fantasy to believe that I existed before conception. No sperm or egg, has the potential by itself to develop into a human being -- any more than does an acorn or a rock. ... I was never, genetically or mathematically, identical or even similar to anything that existed before my conception.

But after then it was a certainty, absent an accident, that I would develop into what I am. ... a clump of cells with the potential to develop into a self-conscious supercomputer is a different matter altogether. It is not mad to draw the line at the first moment of such potential, and I do not see another other place at which it can be reasonably drawn.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact -- as it is always in the abortion debate -- the true objection to my position has nothing to do with legal theory but rather where I draw the line as to where human life begins. My view that life begins at conception is considered irrational, or, as John Kerry would put it, an "article of faith." Reasonable people know, of course, that life begins at six months, an assumption which is somehow not an article of faith but a scientific fact. After that magic moment virtually everyone is anti-choice -- i.e., anti-legalization – except where the woman's life or health is seriously threatened. And the legal line, like mine, is drawn to perfectly coincide with the perceived moral one.

Which requires me, again, to present some cold, hard facts. Any human life, at any stage after conception, at any stage after birth, can be snuffed out quickly and painlessly. You are delusional if you think that it's substantially more difficult to kill a one week old fetus than a six month old one. You are delusional if you think that the quality of the sentience of a one-week-old embryo, a six-month-old fetus, a sleeping infant, or you when unconscious, are substantially different.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?
 

[ QUOTE ]
A person is a living human with the right to life.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're using the wrong definition. Is dissolving a corporation murder because a corp. is a legal person with rights? That's what definition 3 refers to. Definition 1 (if you're pro-life) or 2 (if pro-choice) both make more sense in this context.

Re: D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A person is a living human with the right to life.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're using the wrong definition. Is dissolving a corporation murder because a corp. is a legal person with rights? That's what definition 3 refers to. Definition 1 (if you're pro-life) or 2 (if pro-choice) both make more sense in this context.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not see any point in arguing with you on this point. Those definitions are for the sake of discussion, and I have provided various terms that can be used to mean whatever you want to mean, in a way that can be unequivocally understood by all persons in the discussion. If you feel there is another term or definition that is needed, then feel free to supply it to the discussion. I've used these terms before in similar discussions, and nobody has ever had a problem with them.

Re: D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?
 

I'm just pointing out that that's an exceptionally silly definition to use in the context of this debate. Framing the question of abortion as, "Does this entity have the right to life?" is entirely circular. In addition, I don't think that definition is what anyone means when they use "person" in a discussion about morality.

Re: D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just pointing out that that's an exceptionally silly definition to use in the context of this debate. Framing the question of abortion as, "Does this entity have the right to life?" is entirely circular. In addition, I don't think that definition is what anyone means when they use "person" in a discussion about morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are mistaken in a few ways... none of which is very pertinent to this thread, unless D.Sklansky has a problem with the definitions.

EDIT:
That being said... a "living human being" is usually synonymous with "person". When someone dies, they are no longer a "living human being", and therefore no longer a "person". The question of when "personhood" begins, is the critical question in the abortion debate. This thread is about what criteria determines when someone is a "living human being" (a person). Using the term "person" is simpler and keeps people from equivocating. Is a zygote alive? yes. Is it human? Yes. Is it "a human"? Umm... do you mean, a "living human being" (or "person")? That's the question. I've never met anyone who had a problem with these definitions -- everyone seems to understand what they mean, and it's pretty simple terminology to use in this discussion to keep people from equivocating.

Anyway, I only updated this response to give you the benefit of the doubt... No more on this from me unless others think this is a serious line of enquiry (preferably D.Sklansky).

Re: D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The first, central, and indispensable issue regarding abortion is whether the fetus is a person.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, if the fetus is a person, then the woman's "choice" is restricted in the same way it would be were she considering the killing of any other person:

[/ QUOTE ]

Kip, it sounds like you're more familiar with this type of debate. Above is how the guy starts his claim. I expected to hear an argument for the fetus being a person. But what little argument he lays out is for it being a potential person. Am I missing something subtle?

I must say, I almost preferred DS's "everybody knows" and "OF COURSE IT IS" line of reasoning to this fellas -
a) it's not insane. ( the baseline sanity test).
b) I can't think of anything else. ( the GAP argument)
c) some claim equating a 1 week fetus sentience to his unconscious sentience ( I'm going to offer to arrange the switch for him). Leaving aside how he knows that, it seems strange to even make the 'potential person' argument by comparison to the one time we don't consider a normal person guilty for their actions because they aren't really there. Odd. ( I have other objections, but I wanted to see if my lack of familiarity caused me to overlook a reference that mattered) Is this the best of these type of claims you have came across. I was disappointed.

luckyme

Re: D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?
 

i just wanted to state that the guy trying to split hairs between a HUMAN and a PERSON is probably a fool

Re: D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?
 

Firstly those who say there is no difference between a sperm and an embryo are so obviously wrong that I won't bother to explain.

I have no problem with those who say that killing an embryo is not murder as long as they would say the same thing about killing an embryo kept alive in a futuristic incubator.

Re: D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?
 

Suppose we accept the premise that "abortion is murder because an embryo is a person." Does that automatically mean abortion is wrong?

No. It means abortion is something to be taken very seriously. That's a sentiment I think has significant support even in the pro-choice camp.

Almost everyone believes it is justified to kill in self-defense. It is not surprising a great many people support abortion when the mother's well being is endangered.

Some people believe in euthanasia for the terminally ill. Some people believe in testing for birth defects and aborting the defective. Some would go a step farther, and allow abortion of babies that would be born into a miserable existence - desperately poor, crack whore mothers, whatever - arguing that they are preventing suffering by aborting.

Some people believe in the death penalty. It's not obvious what the parallel would be here.

Some people believe that under the right circumstances, it's okay to declare war on people we don't like, or people who are trying to steal our resources or threatening our way of life. Some people might interpret another mouth to feed as stealing the parents' resources or threatening their carefree way of life. (Odd how even the philosophical warmongers seem to be squicked at the idea of using genocide of the living or forced abortion of the enemy's pregnant women, but it's been done.)

The parallels are not perfect. I am curious whether people's attitudes toward each of the issues involved line up at all with those parallels.

Re: D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I expected to hear an argument for the fetus being a person. But what little argument he lays out is for it being a potential person. Am I missing something subtle?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you are missing anything. In RA's posts, we asked him to please explain how an embryo is a person -- and he never did. We pointed out that a 1-week old embryo has no brain, and so it's level of consciousness & sentience is far different than my level of consciousness when I'm asleep. He never responded.

It baffles me, really. It seems to be some deep-rooted emotional reasoning that makes an otherwise rational person make this unsubstantiated claim. OR -- it's the "gap" argument: we don't know when personhood begins, but conception is the most black/white line we have, so that must be it.

Re: D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?
 

[ QUOTE ]
i just wanted to state that the guy trying to split hairs between a HUMAN and a PERSON is probably a fool

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure who's splitting these hairs -- but it is often equivocated.

Bob dies in the hospital. His body is on the operating table. Is a human on the table? Depends what you mean by "a human". A human body is. But a living human being is not. Using the term "person" makes it easier to discuss, and keeps people from equivocating the term "human".

Re: D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Firstly those who say there is no difference between a sperm and an embryo are so obviously wrong that I won't bother to explain.

I have no problem with those who say that killing an embryo is not murder as long as they would say the same thing about killing an embryo kept alive in a futuristic incubator.

[/ QUOTE ]
The exact point at which an embryo becomes a person isn't really important. The reason killing an embryo is murder is because left alone that embryo will develop into a person naturally. The same thing cannot be said for sperm.

Re: D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Firstly those who say there is no difference between a sperm and an embryo are so obviously wrong that I won't bother to explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure who said there is no difference. I agree, there is a difference. They both have the potential to be persons, though. As does every cell in my body. But, it's much more likely that an embryo will become a person than that a sperm/egg or other human cell will.

[ QUOTE ]
I have no problem with those who say that killing an embryo is not murder as long as they would say the same thing about killing an embryo kept alive in a futuristic incubator.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that futuristically-incubated embryo does not yet have a functioning cerebral cortex, than I would say it is not a person, and therefore killing it would not be murder.

Obviously, I'm disappointed that this is the only response to my questions, but I should have expected as much. The "Raving Atheist"'s blog shows that he is very intelligent and rational, yet a lot of people could not get him to explain his rationale for claiming an embryo is a person.

I think, in the end, the fact is that there is more evidence to support the belief that personhood requires a functioning brain. This is what medical science uses in determining if and when someone is dead. Obviously, an embryo does not have a functioning brain, so if it were on the operating table, a doctor would declare it legally dead.

Re: D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The reason killing an embryo is murder is because left alone that embryo will develop into a person naturally. The same thing cannot be said for sperm.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the sperm that is just about to penetrate the egg to fertilize it? Naturally, it's about to become a zygote, and eventually, a person. Can I kill the sperm at that point?

Re: D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose we accept the premise that "abortion is murder because an embryo is a person." Does that automatically mean abortion is wrong?

No. It means abortion is something to be taken very seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

If an embryo is a person, and therefore abortion is murder, then I think abortion would be wrong in almost all cases. Self-defense being the #1 exception.

Re: D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?
 

[ QUOTE ]
What about the sperm that is just about to penetrate the egg to fertilize it? Naturally, it's about to become a zygote, and eventually, a person. Can I kill the sperm at that point?

[/ QUOTE ]

The sperm about to enter the egg will result almost surely in a person one day (but never a specific one), a little less surely than the zygote a day later, which is little less sure than 4 week fetus etc. That's why this slippery slope argument is so illogical.
By the 'logic' of the Ragin Atheist you quoted, it's hard to see why this wouldn't be murder if you kill the sperm and the egg ( makes it easy for him to see).

With every other entity, including the difference between people and human bodies in a graveyard we describe it's attributes, if a martian shows up he can read the notes and identify the entity. egg-chicken, acorn-oaktree, chair, eyeball. Sturgeon-cavier.
For various psychological reasons, some people need to set logic aside and want to equate things that aren't equal.
Boil a fertized egg and they'll have PETA after you. Roast an acorn and they kick in the "can't destroy an oaktree bylaw".

specific person The concept that this zygote will be a 'specific person' is nutso. So many random things are going to happen to it as it grows that it's impossible to tell which 'person' it will be. How flawed this DNA argument is can easily be seen with 'identical twins'. They shared a lot of experiences in the womb, almost identical, but even with identical DNA and shared womb they'll still have major differences, they are two people, not one, and not just legally.
There is no way that any set DNA turns out any specific person. Why? A person 'evolves' it isn't rubberstamped by it's DNA. Cloning Me won't create another Me, they'll be tons of differences, some very major. The same things that differentiate me from you will differntiate me from him. The 'specific person' argument is not different from "a person' argument, it just sounds better if you're explaining it to a zygote.

The Raging Ath may be just as non-existant today if his mom had an extra burrito, or a snort of good rye, never mind the flu. All the other people that 'would have been' if the million of events didn't occur after that conception have the same right to claim being murdered as the Raging.
They would exist today but for event X.

The real shame is there is a very necessary discussion that needs to take place, but it has to be based on reality and not contrived, irrational claims.

Re: D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The real shame is there is a very necessary discussion that needs to take place, but it has to be based on reality and not contrived, irrational claims.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. One of the best I've ever had on this subject, was with a very open-minded & rational Christian (believe it or not). He was still in college, majoring in Physics, I believe. I think that's a good combination: a science-minded college christian. We didn't reach a conclusion, but we made a lot of progress. He and I both refined our understanding of this critical question.

Re: D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?
 

"What about the sperm that is just about to penetrate the egg to fertilize it? Naturally, it's about to become a zygote, and eventually, a person. Can I kill the sperm at that point?"

No. At least not if you believe you shouldn't kill non cognizant embyos.

On the other hand if the point of demarcation is true cognition, then it isn's murder until the baby is maybe 13 months past conception.

Fuzzy cognition may occur at five months and some may argue for that to be the cutoff point.

My only point has always been that the question should not be based on whether the baby is inside or outside the womb. I have no problem with those who argue that killing a newborn is not necessarily murder.

Re: D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?
 

[ QUOTE ]



My only point has always been that the question should not be based on whether the baby is inside or outside the womb. I have no problem with those who argue that killing a newborn is not necessarily murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have less of a problem with a clear thinker like Peter Singer suggesting that killing a 6 month old is acceptable than you would a fuzzy thinker who makes some silly distinction of not killing a baby outside the womb? Even though this distinction has no basis other than whatever medical care at the time happens to be?

Re: D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?
 

[ QUOTE ]
"What about the sperm that is just about to penetrate the egg to fertilize it? Naturally, it's about to become a zygote, and eventually, a person. Can I kill the sperm at that point?"

No. At least not if you believe you shouldn't kill non cognizant embyos.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very consistent answer. I bet the Christians will have a harder time agreeing with that, though. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand if the point of demarcation is true cognition, then it isn's murder until the baby is maybe 13 months past conception.

Fuzzy cognition may occur at five months and some may argue for that to be the cutoff point.

My only point has always been that the question should not be based on whether the baby is inside or outside the womb. I have no problem with those who argue that killing a newborn is not necessarily murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree -- in or out of the womb doesn't matter much. What matters, is the state of the embryo. If the embryo has the qualities that a person requires, then it is a person. If not, then it isn't. I maintain that the defining requirement is higher-brain activity -- a functioning cerebral cortex. This is currently thought to occur around the 6th month / beginning of the 3rd trimester.

Re: D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"What about the sperm that is just about to penetrate the egg to fertilize it? Naturally, it's about to become a zygote, and eventually, a person. Can I kill the sperm at that point?"

No. At least not if you believe you shouldn't kill non cognizant embyos.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very consistent answer. I bet the Christians will have a harder time agreeing with that, though. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Kip,

To the contrary. In fact, the Catholic Church teaches pretty much this same idea.

RJT

Re: D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



My only point has always been that the question should not be based on whether the baby is inside or outside the womb. I have no problem with those who argue that killing a newborn is not necessarily murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have less of a problem with a clear thinker like Peter Singer suggesting that killing a 6 month old is acceptable than you would a fuzzy thinker who makes some silly distinction of not killing a baby outside the womb? Even though this distinction has no basis other than whatever medical care at the time happens to be?

[/ QUOTE ]
When clear thinking about an ethical question produces the answer that its acceptable to kill infants then perhaps its time to consider that they are asking the wrong question.

chez

Re: D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"What about the sperm that is just about to penetrate the egg to fertilize it? Naturally, it's about to become a zygote, and eventually, a person. Can I kill the sperm at that point?"

No. At least not if you believe you shouldn't kill non cognizant embyos.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very consistent answer. I bet the Christians will have a harder time agreeing with that, though. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Kip,

To the contrary. In fact, the Catholic Church teaches pretty much this same idea.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you please provide references? This is the first I've heard of any church saying that killing a sperm would be murder/wrong if that sperm were about to fertilize an egg.

UPDATE:

OH! I suppose you mean the Catholic position on birth-control... and killing a sperm would be a form of birth-control, and therefore wrong. OK. Nobody takes that seriously, though, so it doesn't count. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] (And by "nobody", I mean no rational person.)

Masturbating would be wrong according to that same doctrine... and we all know that there's nothing wrong with that! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?
 

Kip,

Right. The Church does not state it in the same terms. To call it murdering the sperm is a bit extreme. She simply teaches against the use birth control methods such as condoms and coitus interuptus (withdrawal). This is what I was referring to. The idea behind the dignity of life is similar.

You are probably correct that most (Catholics included) don’t take the birth control teachings of the Church very seriously. The concept behind the teaching is not at all something we Catholics should ignore, though. Either there is dignity of life or there isn’t.

RJT