D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?

[David Sklansky]

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.

[txag007]

[ 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.

[ 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?

[imported_luckyme]

[ 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.

[ 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.

[David Sklansky]

"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.

[ 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?

[chezlaw]

[ 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

[ 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.

[RJT]

[ 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