Alabama votes no more abortion!

[Economist]

The words you use: zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus… all of these are just words describing the stages the one single entity goes through, just as baby, toddler, tween, and senior describe stages the exact same entity goes through if the entity survives all the previous stages.

No arguments from me, because you are correct. But the changes that lead to these stages are very important and significant. They are not quantitative changes, like an infant to a toddler, from a teenager to an adult, etc… The toddler and the senior may have a lot of differences, but they both have the same “equipment” which qualifies them as human organisms, or human beings. They both have a working brain. No one can deny that all the human organs can be replaced or lost - EXCEPT the brain, and the person, or organism is still the same. That is obviously true, and many medical procedures attest to its validity. So it is our functioning brain, which makes us humans. This cannot be denied. (Well, it can, but whoever denies it, is removed from rational consideration. )

What you did not include in your argument is the difference between DNA, cell, tissue, organ and organism. These are also the different stages of development of the same entity, and yet they cannot be declared as “same”.

Also your argument is valid for all the entities. There is nothing special about “humans”. A chicken is functionally different from the fertilized egg. An acorn is functionally different from a sapling. Yes, the beginning - when the sperm fertilizes the ovum - is necessary, but NOT sufficient to declare a new human being. In my previous post I gave the reasons why, so there is no need to repeat it.

When we define human beings as having sentience (in the sense which differentiates us from other animals), we are not describing each and every individual human being. We are describing a quality of the species.

A tad incorrect. “Sentience” is not the same as “sapience”. The definition is “home sapiens” and not “homo sentiens”. But, of course, sapience is not an exclusive trait of humans. It is present in some form in other animals, the higher they are on the evolutionary ladder, the more of “sapience” is present.

 

[Economist]

We say that dogs are four-legged mammals which… that does not exclude a dog which has only 3 legs from being considered a dog, does it?

Yes, but without a brain there is no dog, no cat, no human. That is why in the development of a zygote, blastocyst, etc… there is the deciding point when the brain’s electro-chemical activity starts. That is the first point. The other one is the actual birth, when the new “entity” starts its biologically independent existence. Indeed, it still needs outside help and caring to stay alive, but that caring can come from anyone, and there is no biological independence involved.

So the two basic points are the development of the brain and the birth. Of course, there is also a pesky problem of mutations. How great a deviance is “allowed” from the nonexistent “staple” human DNA without getting a “non-human” mutant? (If a mutant would also develop gills and not just lungs… would it still be a “human”?) After all the definition of a species is the ability to interbreed with other members of that “species”.

Now, abortion is not a “desirable” act. I don’t think that there ever was a woman who purposefully got pregnant, just to have an abortion. The label “pro-abortion” is not just incorrect, but a malicious misrepresentation of the “pro-choice” crowd. The desirable action is to make abortion unnecessary. (And if that is not possible, then as rare as possible.) To help every woman to regulate her ovulation, so every pregnancy would be happily anticipated and the new baby would be welcomed with open arms.

This is the aspect that is missing from the anti-abortion movement. And that is sad.

Ah, almost forgot to thank you for your thoughts. We may not agree on everything, but we can disagree in a respectful, polite and civilized manner. Best wishes to you.

 

[vz71]

but they both have the same “equipment” which qualifies them as human organisms, or human beings. They both have a working brain. No one can deny that all the human organs can be replaced or lost - EXCEPT the brain, and the person, or organism is still the same. That is obviously true, and many medical procedures attest to its validity. So it is our functioning brain, which makes us humans. This cannot be denied.

The brain is common to most stages of human life, but not all of them.
Therefore the brain is not the defining characteristic of a human.

Perhaps it is the life and the human DNA…
After all, the fact of the life and the unique DNA is readily apparent from the moment of conception. And these characteristic are common to all stages of human life.

 

[grotto]

I believe we met when you were a zygote! Happy to hear from you and that you are such a lovely person.

 

[grotto]

There is the most important individual human differential from all other creation - the SOUL!
The soul is first and last. It serves God in a created human body. Who wants to destroy this? Satan - who is condemned to Hell.

 

[Annie]

So it is our functioning brain, which makes us humans. This cannot be denied. (Well, it can, but whoever denies it, is removed from rational consideration. )

Remove me from rational consideration then

If a person’s brain ceases to function in all but the most rudimentary way, we do not then consider them non-human, do we?

Even if the brain stops functioning altogether, we still call what’s left a human body, don’t we?

So I would say that it is not our human brain which makes us human.

Biologically, what makes us human is our human DNA, without which we would not have a human brain.

What you did not include in your argument is the difference between DNA, cell, tissue, organ and organism.

I don’t understand why you want me to define these terms.

These are also the different stages of development of the same entity, and yet they cannot be declared as “same”.

If they were the same, we would not use different words to describe them; the point is that those words are describing the same entity.

Why do you regard the first four as stages of development instead of parts of the fifth?

Also your argument is valid for all the entities. There is nothing special about “humans”. A chicken is functionally different from the fertilized egg. An acorn is functionally different from a sapling.

What do you mean by functionally here? Although they are different, they still belong to their species.

Yes, the beginning - when the sperm fertilizes the ovum - is necessary , but NOT sufficient to declare a new human being. In my previous post I gave the reasons why, so there is no need to repeat it.

I cannot find (or recognize?) this explanation in your recent posts and I can’t go through all the previous posts, so if you could just cut and paste your reasons? That would be very kind of you

A tad incorrect. “Sentience” is not the same as “sapience”. The definition is “home sapiens” and not “homo sentiens”. But, of course, sapience is not an exclusive trait of humans. It is present in some form in other animals, the higher they are on the evolutionary ladder, the more of “sapience” is present

I wanted to use a word which had a certain meaning a long time ago, but apparently that meaning has been lost. It is the quality of thinking which differentiates us from other animals which gives us our moral quality. Self-awareness, self-reflection, ability to chose, ability to see right from wrong…

Other species are irrelevant. The possibility of a huge amount of mutation is irrelevant.

 

[Annie]

Yes, but without a brain there is no dog, no cat, no human. That is why in the development of a zygote, blastocyst, etc… there is the deciding point when the brain’s electro-chemical activity starts

It seems like you are saying that it is not until a brain appears that the blastocyst can be said to be a dog or a cat or a human.

I heartily disagree. The cat zygote is a member of the cat family, etc. The cat zygote will develop not a dog brain or a human brain but a cat brain.

The fact that a brain is not yet in existence at this stage does not mean that the zygote is not a member of its species or that it does not somehow “yet” exist. It exists in the form that is normal for its age, a form that each of the other members of the species have gone through.

To declare that a member of the human species is less human simply because it is young is as abhorrent as saying that someone is less human because they don’t have kneecaps or because they lack secondary sex characteristics.

The other one is the actual birth, when the new “entity” starts its biologically independent existence.

Naturally birth is a big deal to us who have already been born, but there is little difference to the self of the one who has been born. He is still the same entity which existed in the womb; there is no essential change.

The desirable action is to make abortion unnecessary

Why do so many people talk as if pregnancy were something that simply occurs to people instead of something which people cause?

The vast majority of women who have abortions have voluntarily engaged in an act which is well-known to cause babies, and yet everyone behaves as if there were no connection between her decision to have sex and the baby.

Of course, there is also a pesky problem of mutations

How is this relevant to the issue of abortion?

I too appreciate that we have been able to discuss this so well, except for the unfortunate occurrence of being left out of rarional consideration

 

[Economist]

If a person’s brain ceases to function in all but the most rudimentary way, we do not then consider them non-human, do we?

What is this “most rudimentary way”? Could you define it? Don’t forget the difference between the grey cells and the white cells, and their functionality. If only the brain stem remains (as with poor Terry Schiavo) then she ceases to be a “rational animal”, only a vegetating corpse.

Even if the brain stops functioning altogether, we still call what’s left a human body, don’t we?

We have a corpse, which used to be a human being. But the development of the brain was the reason that the entity used to be a human being in the first place.

Biologically, what makes us human is our human DNA, without which we would not have a human brain.

The human DNA is an undefined and undefinable sequence of molecules. Again those pesky mutations are the problem, but you are not interested in discussing that. Which is - of course - your prerogative.

I don’t understand why you want me to define these terms.

Because they are the crux of the problem. If and when human cloning will be possible, and someone wishes to take a living cell to grow a replica of herself that fact does not make the cell to become a new human being until the cloning process is completed. If a stem-cell can be used to grow a new organ (for the purposes of a transplant), the stem-cell does not “become” a new human being, and the new organ (say a heart) is also not a new human being either.

Other species are irrelevant. The possibility of a huge amount of mutation is irrelevant.

Well, then all remains is to thank you for your participation. The fundamental problem is the difference between DNA, cell, tissue, organ and BEING.

1. A human (or canine) DNA is not a human being (or a dog).
2. A human (or canine) cell is not a human being (or a dog).
3. A human (or canine) tissue is not a human being (or a dog).
4. A human (or canine) organ in not a human being (or a dog).

Only an independently existing (or born) human being is a human being (or a dog). Before being born we talk about a miscarriage, and for good reason.

To declare that a member of the human species is less human simply because it is young is as abhorrent as saying that someone is less human because they don’t have kneecaps or because they lack secondary sex characteristics.

It is not the age, but the lack of the necessary organ (working brain), which facilitates rationality.

 

[Economist]

He is still the same entity which existed in the womb; there is no essential change.

But there is. After birth you have a biologically independent organism, which does not rely any more on the bodily resources of an independent human being. The dependence on a nurse is qualitatively different from the dependence on the mother.

Why do so many people talk as if pregnancy were something that simply occurs to people instead of something which people cause?

Because for them pregnancy is like an unwanted accident. Just because one gets into a car, she does not “agree” to have an unwanted accident. You could argue that she could just choose to walk (not to have sex), but would be a very naive argument. We shall not return to the “horse of the Apostles” (walking), we need to make the transportation as safe and as effective as possible.

How is this relevant to the issue of abortion?

Because there is no outrage if a non-human entity’s procreation / development is interrupted.

I too appreciate that we have been able to discuss this so well, except for the unfortunate occurrence of being left out of rarional consideration

You can always fix that. But only YOU can do it. I am satisfied with our exchange, so if you wish to stop communicating, I will just wish you the best, and thank you.

There are two possible approaches, the biological and the philosophical. (I am not interested in the theological). The biological way runs into the question of mutations. The philosophical way runs into the problem that “rationality” is not an exclusive property of the human species. Some entities can exhibit super-human intelligence (we are getting there!) and when that becomes a reality, then some very interesting ethical questions will arise. Is unplugging an AI a “murder” or making it asleep.

 

[dvdjs]

The biological way runs into the question of mutations.

I would add that it will soon run into more problems, with generic alterations, and with advances in our understanding of developmental biology. There will be scientists, some where, who will take a zygote of one species and through genetic manipulation and external signalling produce an organism that is of a different species. This will occur in the lifetime of some posting here.

Then what?

 

[Economist]

I would add that it will soon run into more problems, with generic alterations, and with advances in our understanding of developmental biology. There will be scientists, some where, who will take a zygote of one species and through genetic manipulation and external signalling produce an organism that is of a different species. This will occur in the lifetime of some posting here.

Then what?

Then the real fun begins!!!

You are correct, I did not touch on the question of genetic manipulation.

 

[JimG]

From the standpoint of both Catholic philosophy and theology, the soul does not reside only the brain; it is the animating principle of the whole body. Lately we seem to be trying to reduce human beings to just our brains, but that is not the case.

And when it comes to development of the whole human body, it is the earliest embryo, even at the zygote level, that directs the process of developing all the bodily organs, including the brain. The newly formed human works with a purpose to complete its development.

Rationality is an aspect of the soul, which enables the human sensory system including the brain to develop the ability for not just consciousness, but self reflection, being conscious of our consciousness.

But most of the secular world has adopted total materialism as a worldview, which is regrettable.

 

[Economist]

From the standpoint of both Catholic philosophy and theology, the soul does not reside only the brain; it is the animating principle of the whole body.

That is fine, but we are NOT talking about theology, but biology - sprinkled with a touch of philosophy.

The evidence is overwhelming: any tissue or organ can be replaced (or actually removed) and the person stays essentially the same, as long as the brain works as it used to. Even a small amount of chemical substance or a mild electrical current can disturb the personality, and a minor surgical interference - severing the frontal lobe from the rest - will permanently destroy the personality. Not to mention that the church is not supposed to make proclamations about science - and biology is a science - because it is not its field of competence.

Rationality is an aspect of the soul, which enables the human sensory system including the brain to develop the ability for not just consciousness, but self reflection, being conscious of our consciousness.

Do you have any evidence for this assertion? Of course not.

 

[grotto]

Reviewing your post - the info is very timely. These same tactics are being used from every direction because, those who want abortion to flourish are finding more good people - do not, and are in their way!

Exposure is a great weapon! I think your post # was 15.

 

[JimG]

It is not theology though, that has driven the pro-life movement, but embryology. Medieval philosophers had no clear picture of how fertilization actually works or when a new human being begins. The old notion of “quickening,” for example, is in reality nothing more than the baby kicking in the womb, so mom can feel it. Embryology shows that the unborn child has been a unique human individual long before that occurrence. A human sperm cell is not a new individual; an ovum is not a new unique human individual. Together, they combine genomes to begin a new and genetically distinct individual of the human species, rapidly developing toward adulthood. If one arbitrarily picks some other point of development to declare that now it’s a new human being, it can only be an arbitrary point. From the standpoint of embryology, the new individual has its beginning at fertilization.

One doctor who formerly did abortions didn’t even go into that much detail. In congressional testimony he said he just got tired of pulling out human hands and feet and heads and counting up the pieces to make sure they were all there. Suddenly he no longer saw the results as small body parts, but as someone’s son or daughter.

 

[Annie]

. If only the brain stem remains (as with poor Terry Schiavo) then she ceases to be a “rational animal”, only a vegetating corpse.

Had someone not sanctioned by the courts strangled or shot her, they would have been charged with murder.

But the development of the brain was the reason that the entity used to be a human being in the first place.

This is circular reasoning.

The human DNA is an undefined and undefinable sequence of molecules.

This makes no sense. We can use DNA to determine relatives and identity.

Again those pesky mutations are the problem, but you are not interested in discussing that. Which is - of course - your prerogative.

As it is yours to exclude theology.

Again those pesky mutations are the problem,

No one is trying to defend abortion due to mutations–that is why I say they are irrelevant.

someone wishes to take a living cell to grow a replica of herself that fact does not make the cell to become a new human being until the cloning process is completed.

There must be a different between cloning oneself and using stem cells to make a new organ. It seems pretty clear that whoever was doing either would know which they were aiming for.

 

[Annie]

A human (or canine) cell is not a human being (or a dog).

A random human cell is not a human being. The initial cell formed by the union of sperm and ovum does for a brief time comprise a human.

It is not the age, but the lack of the necessary organ (working brain), which facilitates rationality.

The age and the lack of brain are inextricably intertwined since the reason for the lack of brain is that the human is young.

One would have to say that we must look at humans in their totality since a brain could not function or exist independently without the rest of the body.

 

[Annie]

I am satisfied with our exchange, so if you wish to stop communicating, I will just wish you the best, and thank you.

I agree, and return the sentiments and would shake your hand if I could.

The philosophical way runs into the problem that “rationality” is not an exclusive property of the human species.

This made me realize that your former comparisons of adult bonobo chimps to very immature humans is a fallacy of comparing things erroneously.

Altho many animals do exhibit a high degree of intelligence and therefore some facility with things like tools, they are unable to reason at anywhere near the same level as humans. They lack concepts of self which we have, they do not have the same sorts of concepts of future and past that we do.

There is a difference between humans and animals which is a feature of the human species.

There are two possible approaches, the biological and the philosophical. (I am not interested in the theological). The biological way runs into the question of mutations. The philosophical way runs into the problem that “rationality” is not an exclusive property of the human species. Some entities can exhibit super-human intelligence (we are getting there!) and when that becomes a reality, then some very interesting ethical questions will arise. Is unplugging an AI a “murder” or making it asleep.

You have not given reasons as to why the theological should be ignored, nor why mutations or why fantasies of possible future AI entities play any part in the issue of abortion.

Because for them pregnancy is like an unwanted accident. Just because one gets into a car, she does not “agree” to have an unwanted accident.

The difference between having a car accident and having a baby is that there is no “accident functionality” to driving, whereas there is a well-known “pregnancy functionality” to having sex.

 

[Economist]

A random human cell is not a human being.

Indeed, it is not, but it is a living human cell. (This is the reason why I ask the specifics about the difference between human cell, tissue, organ and organism = being) Using a cloning technique it can grow into a replica of the original. Yet, no one calls it a human being, it is just a living cell. The same is true for the zygote. Under proper circumstances it can grow into a human being. That the circumstances are different is obvious, but irrelevant. Just because some circumstances are artificial, does not make any difference. Our lives contain a lot of “artificial” circumstances. Actually, we could hardly live without them. Can you imagine what life would be if all the artificial technology would disappear overnight? A very scary thought.

The age and the lack of brain are inextricably intertwined since the reason for the lack of brain is that the human is young.

Yes, so we do not consider them human beings (zygotes, blastocysts, etc.). There are some kids with a severe form of autism, who will never grow into a rational being. Of course they are still children, because their brains perform all the automatic functions to keep them alive. Without a brain there can be no life.

I agree, and return the sentiments and would shake your hand if I could.

Thank you. Let me reciprocate your “virtual” handshake with a “virtual” hug. Where I live hugging people is a very much practiced custom. And makes our life more enjoyable.

This made me realize that your former comparisons of adult bonobo chimps to very immature humans is a fallacy of comparing things erroneously.

Why would it be? In that respect we only talked about the intelligence or rationality of these two beings. Moreover, the general behavior of the bonobos is much more civilized than the human behavior. They don’t fight, and when they feel frustrated, they alleviate their frustration by having sex. As the old saying went: “Make love not war”!

Altho many animals do exhibit a high degree of intelligence and therefore some facility with things like tools, they are unable to reason at anywhere near the same level as humans. They lack concepts of self which we have, they do not have the same sorts of concepts of future and past that we do.

A two years old child has the same deficit. Some herd animals have a very developed social structure. Elephants have been observed to mourn the dead. Several herd animals actively protect their young ones from predators. Most animals have sounds but their “speech” only expresses their emotions. But there are some exceptions, and not just among the primates. Ravens can express desires, as Konrad Lorenz has observed. So let’s not write off the intelligence of animals.

 

[Economist]

You have not given reasons as to why the theological should be ignored, nor why mutations or why fantasies of possible future AI entities play any part in the issue of abortion.

As for theology, I am not a trained theologian, though I have some knowledge about it. (Theology is the study of gods, demonology is the study of demons, angelology would be the study of angels and I have never encountered any gods, demons or angels). I am not interested in “bigfootology” or “lochnessology” either.

Mutations and future AI-s are important to decide if an entity should be accepted as a “human” or not; and since the treatment of non-humans is generally not considered an ethical question, it is important to agree upon the boundaries of “what constitutes a human”. Personally I consider any sapient (and maybe sentient) being to deserve equal consideration. (An intelligent animal, or space alien would be both sapient and sentient, while an intelligent AI would only be sapient, but not sentient.) But that might be the subject of a different discussion - one of my favorites, I admit.

The difference between having a car accident and having a baby is that there is no “accident functionality” to driving, whereas there is a well-known “pregnancy functionality” to having sex.

It is not that simple. The functionality and its circumstances both need to be considered along with the goal of the action. If some people only seek enjoyment (and bonding) from sex, and execute the necessary prevention techniques, then a possible pregnancy is merely an unwanted and undesired accident. And one is not required to live with the consequences of an accident. I hope you are aware that the majority of the fertilized eggs simply will be flushed out from the woman’s body, and a “morning after” pill only facilitates this natural process, so it cannot be called “abortifacient”.

When it comes to abortion, I already stated my stance: “abortion is not a desirable procedure”, and I have never heard of an event, when a woman purposefully got pregnant, just to undergo a traumatic experience of having a curettage.

Instead of throwing hostile adjectives at each other (you and I did NOT do this! ) I would love to see a rational discussion on how to avoid unwanted pregnancies. Every avoided and undesired pregnancy is an avoided abortion. A worthy goal to pursue, I think. Of course I am not too naive, and I am aware of reasons why this question is very hard (if not outright impossible) to resolve. Of course it could be resolved in a heartbeat, if God would come forward and declared his command for everyone to hear it.

In the meantime, let me send you my best wishes.