Frozen Embryo

BTirish,

I didn't actually mean to contradict your post directly, I was referring to general opinion on the start of life as creation of a unique pattern (you have to reply to someone). I think that definition is weak and being concerned because we as a whole potentially missed out on one random set of chemicals being created is no loss (I meant that concern is anal, like being concerned a small part of large and meaningless trivia collection is missing, I fully support defining terms [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]).

2nd point we agree on.

3rd point, see my thread "Scientology and Christianity currently tied", in summary, Christians believe scientolgy is silly, Christians can draw no meaningful distinctions for why their religion is different (more credible), so by my logic and theirs, they must be irrational.

[BTirish]

[ QUOTE ]
BTirish,

I didn't actually mean to contradict your post directly, I was referring to general opinion on the start of life as creation of a unique pattern (you have to reply to someone). I think that definition is weak and being concerned because we as a whole potentially missed out on one random set of chemicals being created is no loss (I meant that concern is anal, like being concerned a small part of large and meaningless trivia collection is missing, I fully support defining terms [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I guess you aren't in fact calling me anal, because I recognize it as obvious that a human zygote is anything but a "random set of chemicals." A human organism (or any organism) is anything but a merely random arrangement of chemicals--there is nothing (significantly) more finely materially ordered in the entire universe.

I note that you're essentially begging the question of the significance of a human zygote or embryo by referring to it as "just a set of random chemicals." If it's just a "set of random chemicals," then so are you. And if any "set of random chemicals" is insignificant and expendable, then so are you. Fortunately, neither it nor you are a set of random chemicals; unfortunately, you can't get away with simply dismissing the possibility that an entity that is smaller than the size of a grain of salt might be of infinite moral worth, simply because it is so small.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Christians believe life begins at the exact moment of conception.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it's just something they say, it's not something they believe, a fairly usual situation in a lot of religion. You can test them by showing slides at 0.1 second intervals of a sperm approaching an egg, entering, etc. Ask them to stop on the slide where conception occurs and tell you a)why that slide and not the slide before or after b) how do they know that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I say it and I believe it. I'm not sure what relevance there is to which slide it is on? I'm pretty sure it happens before someone chooses to terminate it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's relevant because conception is a process, not a single point in time.

The pertinent question is: what criteria defines personhood? Here is a thread with lots of posts discussing this. I will be more than happy to discuss thsi with you in that topic if you want.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
However, the soul would remain present as long as the embryo remains alive (which it is while it is frozen).

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like we'll need a definition of 'alive'. Here's the problem in using it the way it seems you are suggesting. If a body is capable of being revived, is the person actually dead? Are the people who have had their bodies but into deep freeze also alive, if there is any chance that some time in the future they could be reactivated? If they are, do the people who have power of attorney for them have to be recognized as acting for a person with full legal rights?

If my question is unclear I'll try and rephrase it, just let me know.

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, it is not merely by reason of Christian belief that I think that the soul is made present at conception.


[/ QUOTE ]

so not only do you have scientific proof that souls are real, you can identify when they are made?

[BTirish]

[ QUOTE ]
Looks like we'll need a definition of 'alive'. Here's the problem in using it the way it seems you are suggesting. If a body is capable of being revived, is the person actually dead? Are the people who have had their bodies but into deep freeze also alive, if there is any chance that some time in the future they could be reactivated? If they are, do the people who have power of attorney for them have to be recognized as acting for a person with full legal rights?

If my question is unclear I'll try and rephrase it, just let me know.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your question is clear. If a person is capable of being revived, then he is not dead. That there are a number of confusions possible in particular cases as to whether or not a person is, in fact, dead, is testament only to the limitations in the evidence at hand in particular cases and our ability to interpret it. No evidence or hypothetical difficulties can establish that there isn't in reality contrariety between death and life and that one isn't, in fact, exclusively one or the other.

As to the particular case you suggest, I will admit that it is a difficult one. Precisely because we don't know with absolute certainty if it is possible to revive an adult person who has been frozen, I would say that it is not possible to state with absolute certainty that he is dead. However, I would say that as a matter of moral or practical certainty, such a person is probably dead--as yet, there is no evidence that revival of such a person is possible. That is, the freezing process has probably killed them. As to what the law should be in their cases? I'm not sure. Given what we know, it does not seem that it would be in itself unlawful to unfreeze such a person and bury him.

In the case of the embryo, it is clear that life remains while the embryo is frozen, since the freezing only suspends and/or delays the developmental process. The embryo is revived after being unfrozen. The question of whether a frozen adult human is alive depends on whether or not similar revival is possible. Certainly in the latter case it is no where near as simple a process.

I will add a brief note about ethics and moral philosophy. According to Aristotle, one mark of a wise man is that he does not demand the same kind of certainty in practical matters as he does in a theoretical subject like mathematics. Thus, we act morally when we act according to all the available evidence in a situation and in accordance with moral principles that we judge to be true always or for the most part. So, one doesn't look to the most difficult and most perplexing ethical cases to craft one's definitions and principles. In ethics, one works from what is easier and more obvious (to formulate principles) to what is harder and less obvious (then applying the principles that apply always or for the most part to sort out the difficult cases).

Your question concerning frozen adult humans doesn't tell us much about the case of frozen embryos, because we already know more about the possibility of revival in the case of embryos than in the case of adults. As for what the law should be concerning frozen adults, I think I have given a fair answer that reflects what evidence we have.

[BTirish]

[ QUOTE ]
so not only do you have scientific proof that souls are real, you can identify when they are made?

[/ QUOTE ]

When you ask for scientific proof, if you are asking for scientific proof in the sense of empirical evidence derived from hypothesis-testing experiments, I can furnish none, because this is a subject for which there are no appropriate experiments. The modern scientific method is not, in fact, the appropriate method for every science. If when you ask for scientific proof you mean philosophical proof, then yes, I have such proof and I could relate it to you. In a short book I would be able to rehearse the argument supporting the conclusions I have stated. Fortunately, the truth of my position does not rest on my ability to relate immediately a full argument in support of it in an internet forum at the whim of another contributor.

As a matter of natural reason, I don't think it can be established that a new soul is in fact created at the moment of conception. This is, however, what I believe as a Christian.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
If a person is capable of being revived, then he is not dead.

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
Your question concerning frozen adult humans doesn't tell us much about the case of frozen embryos, because we already know more about the possibility of revival in the case of embryos than in the case of adults.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I'll try once more. Say this was 100 years ago and we didn't know how to 'revive' a frozen embryo. Would they still be alive? I can't see how 'alive' and 'non-alive' can be based on a possible future state of an entity and/or our ability to revive it. Say we try and revive an embryo and we fail, was it therefore dead while it was frozen? If not, when did it die? Or is it still alive because for all we know there is a future technique that could still revive it?

Nope, it seems treating 'alive' as a state of being rather than a potential state of being is the only meaningful way to deal with the subject ( that doesn't define how we deal with it). When they yelled, "It's alive!!" as Igor started moving, was Igor actually alive all the time since he just needed to be stimulated.

I don't see a problem with defining 'being alive' as a state, like ice and water. We don't think of ice as water merely because it's easy for it to be water. The moral question doesn't go away just because we correctly refer to entities in different states as being in different categories. The 'potential' stance leads to moral uncertainty and intellectual sommersaults. Alive/not-alive are not easy definitions to come up with, animal/vegetable/mineral do not have clear boundaries either. We do not call an cucumber an animal just because it's impossible to identify the boundary ( because there is no actual boundary and not even a good arbitrary one).

The state of medicine today leads to many cases of "we brought him back from the dead" situations. In those situations the person would have stayed dead 100 years ago. By your criteria, they were actually alive ( since the could have been revived), but if that's the case, when did those people 100 years ago die? Or in the modern cases where the revival fails what does the doctor put down as the 'time of death'? If a guy falls over in NYork and another in BoraBora is the NYorker alive but the BoraBoran dead even if they are in identical states?

A 10 year old does not get to argue for the rights of a 21 year old on the basis of "one day I'll be one". If I put a live chicken in the a boiling pot, PETA will be after me, if I put a fertized egg in it, they won't. I don't want to be fined for killing an oak tree when I barbeque an acorn.

"Me" is the "state of being me" and I don't see a moral problem with falling over and becoming 'dead' even if some medical miracle then revives me, I was still dead for some time. While I'm laying there I am just flesh, the 'me' part kicks in when the brain starts doing it's 'mind' thing again, if it never does, then I stay dead. My death doesn't depend on unrevivability by present day medical skill. Simply, if my mind stops, I stop. "I think, therefore I am" holds.

[BTirish]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I'll try once more. Say this was 100 years ago and we didn't know how to 'revive' a frozen embryo. Would they still be alive? I can't see how 'alive' and 'non-alive' can be based on a possible future state of an entity and/or our ability to revive it. Say we try and revive an embryo and we fail, was it therefore dead while it was frozen? If not, when did it die? Or is it still alive because for all we know there is a future technique that could still revive it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're missing my point. Being alive is a condition or quality of an entity, in reality--not just according to our opinion. If there is any natural means by which someone can be revived from whatever deficient state they're in, then they are not dead. If there is no possible natural means whatsoever (in reality, not just according to what we know) to revive someone, then that person is dead. (All living things can be revived from a deficient state by some natural means. This entity cannot be revived from a deficient state by any natural means whatsoever. Therefore this entity is dead. MTT) This is not to say that "being alive" is DEFINED as "the ability to be revived"; it is to say that one consequence or feature of being alive is that revival is possible.

If one tries and fails to revive a frozen embryo, then either the embryo was dead before the revival attempt began, or the attempt failed for some particular reason and the embryo died during the process.

[ QUOTE ]
Nope, it seems treating 'alive' as a state of being rather than a potential state of being is the only meaningful way to deal with the subject ( that doesn't define how we deal with it). When they yelled, "It's alive!!" as Igor started moving, was Igor actually alive all the time since he just needed to be stimulated.

[/ QUOTE ]

First it was somewhat unuseful hypotheticals... now it's science fiction hypotheticals?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see a problem with defining 'being alive' as a state, like ice and water. We don't think of ice as water merely because it's easy for it to be water. The moral question doesn't go away just because we correctly refer to entities in different states as being in different categories. The 'potential' stance leads to moral uncertainty and intellectual sommersaults. Alive/not-alive are not easy definitions to come up with, animal/vegetable/mineral do not have clear boundaries either. We do not call an cucumber an animal just because it's impossible to identify the boundary ( because there is no actual boundary and not even a good arbitrary one).

[/ QUOTE ]

See my comments about Aristotle on the wise man above. You cannot demand the same certainty in moral matters as in theoretical ones. You seem to be demanding absolute certainty in practical matters. I'm not performing any "intellectual somersaults." Being alive is the contrary of being dead, so by definition something is either alive or dead. Once one is dead one can't be returned to life by natural means. What's so hard to understand about this?

[ QUOTE ]
The state of medicine today leads to many cases of "we brought him back from the dead" situations. In those situations the person would have stayed dead 100 years ago. By your criteria, they were actually alive ( since the could have been revived), but if that's the case, when did those people 100 years ago die? Or in the modern cases where the revival fails what does the doctor put down as the 'time of death'? If a guy falls over in NYork and another in BoraBora is the NYorker alive but the BoraBoran dead even if they are in identical states?

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, being alive or being dead is a condition that actually exists in entities. We misspeak when we say that someone was "brought back from the dead." You are confusing absolute possibility with contingent possibility. I can state with absolute (and not just moral) certainty that there is absolutely no possible natural means by which my dead grandma (who has been dead for more than 10 years) can be brought back to life. Likewise, I can state with absolute certainty that there is no way to revive bodies exhibiting rigor mortis and decay. In most cases proximate to death though, all that is possible is moral or practical certainty. This is fine, and it shouldn't bother us. It doesn't change the fact that a being is either dead or alive, in reality, and that as a consequence of this that being is either absolutely possibly revivable or not.

Just because it is contingently possible to revive a person in NY while it isn't contingently possible to revive a person in Bora Bora who has the same condition doesn't mean it isn't absolutely possible to revive the latter person. And, again, you are demanding theoretical certainty in practical matters--why should "what time the doctor should put for time of death" be a worthwhile objection in this matter?

[ QUOTE ]
A 10 year old does not get to argue for the rights of a 21 year old on the basis of "one day I'll be one". If I put a live chicken in the a boiling pot, PETA will be after me, if I put a fertized egg in it, they won't. I don't want to be fined for killing an oak tree when I barbeque an acorn.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're going to use rhetorical examples, you might want to clue us in to your actual point. All I can infer is that there are differences in how we are to treat members of human, animal, and plant species, according to the stage of their development. Okay: you're right. But "being alive" is a state shared by human zygotes and human octogenarians, and it is on the basis of being a living member of the human species that the most basic rights are afforded. Other rights or privileges, like getting to drive or to vote, are dependent upon having reached a certain stage of development. You're falsely universalizing from a particular. Just because some rights are age- or development-dependent doesn't mean that all rights are.

[ QUOTE ]
"Me" is the "state of being me" and I don't see a moral problem with falling over and becoming 'dead' even if some medical miracle then revives me, I was still dead for some time. While I'm laying there I am just flesh, the 'me' part kicks in when the brain starts doing it's 'mind' thing again, if it never does, then I stay dead. My death doesn't depend on unrevivability by present day medical skill. Simply, if my mind stops, I stop. "I think, therefore I am" holds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't subscribe to Cartesianism. I'm not sure what you mean by "the state of being me." If you are actually revived, then you weren't dead. Even if your brain was not exhibiting actual higher functions, the matter of your brain and the rest of your body obviously still had to be capable of it (absolutely speaking) in order for the doctors to revive you. So, it couldn't have been the case that you were dead.