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?

[ 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

[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 ]
[ 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]

[RJT]

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