h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

dang - I lost the first reply...

> "When something has human DNA, it is biochemically human, not before."

Four problems: dead people, donated organs, skin cells, and transgenics. All of these have human DNA, yet I would not wish to give them all full human rights...

Perhaps you could clarify your definition?

asides:
- The foetus gets oxygenated blood by putting it's depleted blood in close proximity to the mother's oxygenated blood - the oxygen passes over, in a similar way to the lungs.
This means the mother is less likely to pass over diseases to her unborn child - and also avoids problems where the mother and child have different blood types.
- a battery can move muscles: I'm not sure that's showing intelligence. Moving muscles in response to particular stimuli is a better display, imo.

Lucinda:

>>Four problems: dead people, donated organs, skin cells, and transgenics. All of these have human DNA, yet I would not wish to give them all full human rights...<<

Dead people are still biochemically human (until the cellular processes and DNA break down). A qualification for human rights is life. The other is being human. Donated organs and the others fall into a similar category to the wart as far as human rights. The
system has the rights, not its parts.

The oxygenating blood is kind of what I expected. But just so I am sure, the mother provides the unborn child with nutrients and oxygen but not blood? That was a long tangent (although I guess they all are).

>>a battery can move muscles<<

But that movement is meaningless without humans controlling it. All that it takes to move muscles is electricity. The foetus soon after that point in its development begins involuntary movements and then begins to control the movements. The foetus then goes through periods of sleep and a level of consciousness, based on instinct, that controls the muscle movements. The foetus shows self-awareness in degrees that increase from this point (end of eighth week) on.

My point then is that the foetus exhibits characteristics that make it alive by any standard expressed in this forum sometime before birth. The only physical change that occurs at birth is the beginning of breath (of air). This does not in my mind constitute the granting
of humanity upon itself. If you believe so, I believe that is because that particular definition of humanity fits your pre-conceptions.

The question then becomes as it has been: when does the un-born child become human. I believe it is when it becomes a child, at the point of conception (but you knew that already).

I was using rhetoric, you are correct, but that was because I was trying to steer you to a specific answer. And I got it: "It is homicide to kill a living human being, it is not homicide to kill one of its parts." Now, please tell me in what way the developing zygote is a form of life completely independent of the mother, and not simply a part of the mother, in the same way as a wart?

Of course, in your responses on the signs of life, you are presenting qualifications. I am using the term "zygote" on purpose, referring quite deliberately to the very early stages when it is nothing more than a bunch of self-replicating cells (much like a growing wart). Your answers have all got qualifications... yes, the fetus does exhibit intelligence, but not until the 8th week. The fetus does pump its own blood, but not until the 16th week. So the question remains... before these stages, is the child alive in any real sense?

"Is your point that the zygote is only human once the system that forms out of it becomes self-sustaining?" - Pretty much. I don't see any difference between a zygote and a wart or a virus up to this point. If all of its life-functions are provided by the host, it is nothing more than a virus. And remember, viruses have some complicated systems themselves, and actually respond to sensory stimuli.

"So perhaps the first time the fetus has observable intelligence is right before the 2nd trimester begins. Is the fetus alive yet?" - A good question, but the better question is "Was it alive before?" And if the answer is not an unqualified "Yes," then, if we can't determine if it is alive, can we really kill it?

A heart which is about to be transplanted into someone elses body would seem to be as alive as a foetus. It also certainly contains human DNA.

If you want to talk about "systems" then I can just say that mother+foetus is a "system" - and hence the "parts" of that "system" don't have rights.


The mother provides a bunch of things - basically everything that can cross the placenta barrier - for example, water, sugars, gases dissolved in the blood, amino acids, and suchlike. Some viruses can cross the placental barrier too. And other stuff I forget...

Colonel Sellers:

>>Now, please tell me in what way the developing zygote is a form of life completely independent of the mother, and not simply a part of the mother, in the same way as a wart?<<

You have made comparisons of the zygote to both a wart and a virus. The zygote is fully dependent upon the mother for survival. In that way you say that the zygote is like a virus. Although I don't like it, I must say that *in the scope of the zygote only* it is like a
virus. Is a virus independent of the mother? It is dependent certainly, but it is separate at the same time. Now that I have paused briefly and let my head stop sinning from that, I will try to answer. The zygote is most certainly dependent on the mother. At the same time, it is not just a part of the mother. It is a separate entity in and of itself, like a virus.

>>before these stages, is the child alive in any real sense?<<

I am having trouble determining what you mean exactly by the word "real." I will assume that you mean either palpable ("touchable"/"graspable") or scientific.

You have given your definitions for determining if something is alive with one of the main factors being a display of intelligence. From a virus and a sperm, we see that simple (small) forms of life can display intelligence. This is viewed in several ways. You have
focused on (as I said earlier) displayed intelligence, that visible with a common microscope. From that dimension, a zygote shows virtually no outward signs of intelligence other than its growth into something greater than itself. Therefore, a child is not alive in that sense. What about other "senses"? I have used the word "biochemical" many times recently. Looking at a cell biochemically shows a plethora of extremely complex machines that stagger our imagination. To me, that is life. A sperm may go
towards an egg, but one protein transported from the nucleus to a ribosome of a cell is even more impressive to me and I am only now beginning to understand. From that dimension, a zygote shows virtually limitless signs of intelligence and demonstrates, like
all cells, life itself.

>>If all of its life-functions are provided by the host, it is nothing more than a virus. And remember, viruses have some complicated systems themselves, and actually respond to sensory stimuli.<<

Viruses are extremely complex organisms. Bacteria, BTW, are in many ways more complex than ourselves. All of its life-functions are provided by the mother. There are several things that make the zygote more than a virus. First, it will (under proper conditions) change into a self-sustaining system fully independent of its host. In that way it is more like a parasite that leaves the host intact, but anyways, that's better than a virus. Second, for a virus, the host tries to get rid of it. In a zygote, the host goes out of its way
to nurture it. Third, the zygote is a creation of it's own host (with some outside help). In what I hope is the majority of cases, the host even chooses to create the zygote. Fourth, the zygote is not a foreign pathogen. There are more, but I think that most of the other points would just repeat other ones.

>>A good question, but the better question is "Was it alive before?" And if the answer is not an unqualified "Yes," then, if we can't determine if it is alive, can we really kill it?<<

First of all, our determination of life is not what makes something alive. The answer depends on your point-of-view. Without the chance to make qualifications or explanations, I would have to say yes, the zygote is alive.

Lucinda:

>>A heart which is about to be transplanted into someone else's body would seem to be as alive as a foetus. It also certainly contains human DNA.<<

It is similar to skin cells though in that it is a piece of the system, not the system itself.

>>If you want to talk about "systems" then I can just say that mother+foetus is a "system" - and hence the "parts" of that "system" don't have rights.<<

Mother+foetus is a system, but it is not a living system. It is a living community. Your body plus foreign bacteria is a system as well, but it too is a system of many members, not a system of inseparable parts. A group of cells make up your everyday human being.
A group of cells that have been separated from that human being has no meaning. A human being from a group of human beings does have meaning.

Alright, nosretep. You've agreed that a zygote is just like a virus, or bacteria, or a wart. We kill warts. we kill viruses. We kill bacteria. Why would killing a zygote be any different? When answering, don't consider what it can eventually become with the help of its host... consider only what it is.

And remember, all of those amazing ribosome thingies that you call life exist in my skin flakes, but I still haven't heard you stand up in their defense.

"In what I hope is the majority of cases, the host even chooses to create the zygote." - But we are considering this question exactly because of and in light of those instances where there is no choice.

"Fourth, the zygote is not a foreign pathogen." - I wouldn't be so quick to say that... after all, half of its genetic code comes from the outside, and its completed DNA structure does not match that of its host. If there are any other qualifications for a foreign pathogen, I'm not aware of them.

"Your body plus foreign bacteria is a system as well, but it too is a system of many members, not a system of inseparable parts." - Slow down a minute. The bacteria that aid in digestion make up a system, but they are very much seperable. They can quite easily survive in another host. A zygote can do that, as well, which is why eggs and I believe even fertilized eggs can be implanted into a host who cannot produce her own. It's much the same way in which you need a house in which to live, but it doesn't particularly matter which one.

"A group of cells that have been separated from that human being has no meaning." - And thus an aborted zygote has no meaning. Well put.

Colonel Sellers:

I must say that I was getting tired of this conversation just a few days ago.

>>You've agreed that a zygote is just like a virus, or bacteria, or a wart.<<

With an understanding that potientiality does not enter into the equation. I do think a parasite is a better analogy, but that is trivial at this point.

>>Why would killing a zygote be any different?<<

Because it is a unique human being. In killing a virus or a bacteria or a wart, we are looking to help people. Killing a zygote does basically one thing: rid the mother of a child. I believe that is wrong.

>>consider only what it is.<<

Besides the fact that the zygote is on full life support and is currently a vegetable, you should not pull the plug on it because it will (under the right circumstances) have a full life with full self-awareness, etc. This is different than something forever on life support and constantly a vegetable. Therefore, what it is depends largely on what it will be.

>>I still haven't heard you stand up in their defense.<<

What are they? A part of you that dies. You yourself do not die (unless you lose a whole bunch of 'em). There is no loss of human life.

>>But we are considering this question exactly because of and in light of those instances where there is no choice.<<

Indeed. Besides that, I strayed from the current point of view.

>>"Fourth, the zygote is not a foreign pathogen." - I wouldn't be so quick to say that...<<

Perhaps so. I was just trying to throw in some extra points.

>>"Your body plus foreign bacteria is a system as well, but it too is a system of many members, not a system of inseparable parts." - Slow down a minute. The bacteria that aid in digestion make up a system, but they are very much seperable.<<

The bacteria in digestion is a system of many members that work together. "NOT" a system of inseparable parts. They are indeed separable because in reality they are separate to begin with.

>>They can quite easily survive in another host. A zygote can do that, as well, which is why eggs and I believe even fertilized eggs can be implanted into a host who cannot produce her own.<<

I thought a zygote was the term used after implantation. If so, it cannot be removed (I guess I should add "today"). If it could safely be removed, the need the death of a child in an abortion can be avoided while still allowing the termination of the pregnancy. Interestingly, that would give us all what we want except that the end result would be similar to adoption.

>>"A group of cells that have been separated from that human being has no meaning." - And thus an aborted zygote has no meaning. Well put.<<

Actually that's right (much to my surprise after reading it once). The distinction lies in the word "aborted."

> "Mother+foetus is a system, but it is not a living system. It is a living community. Your body plus foreign bacteria is a system as well, but it too is a system of many members, not a system of inseparable parts. A group of cells make up your everyday human being.
A group of cells that have been separated from that human being has no meaning. A human being from a group of human beings does have meaning."

I can accept that you think this - I may even agree with you in part. However, this is not a scientific dividing line: you are talking about the donated heart as having "no meaning", while the foetus "does have meaning". You distinguish between a "community" or "living system" and other sorts of system, and say that mother+foetus is the latter without saying why.

That's fine - and I do understand what you're saying. It's just my opinion that your definition is just as subject to blur as any other criteria that might be used.

Incidentally, I as a human am certainly not made up of "inseperable parts" - most of my parts are all too seperable, from skin to organs to teeth to nails to...

Actualy, I would say that an aborted child has similar meaning to a miscarried child - and a read through of the miscarriage entry - http://www.h2g2.com/A507773 - tells me that this is quite a big meaning to all concerned.

A good entry to read, incidentally - I recommend it.

"Besides the fact that the zygote is on full life support and is currently a vegetable, you should not pull the plug on it because it will (under the right circumstances) have a full life with full self-awareness, etc. This is different than something forever on life support and constantly a vegetable. Therefore, what it is depends largely on what it will be." - That's right... a zygote is a *potential* life. But if you take the logic further, then so is a sperm and an egg. Yet women flush out hundreds of eggs throughout their lifetimes, and men massacre sperm by the billions, and nobody becomes overly upset. That's because, while they both have the *potential* to become human life, they are not human life yet. A zygote is also not yet a human life... it is a mindless parasite, as you said (which really isn't any different than my virus or wart anaologies, so we can use your term for now). You're against abortion because killing a human is wrong. But in the early stages, it is not human yet... it is only a potential human.

As far as I know, the term zygote simply refers to a fertilized egg. So an egg can be fertilized and then implanted into a completely different host. If I am mistaken, then simply remove the word "zygote" in that statement and replace it with "fertilized egg." As I said, biology is not one of my strong suits.

In response to my skin flakes challenge, you said they are, "A part of you that dies. You yourself do not die (unless you lose a whole bunch of 'em). There is no loss of human life." - There is no loss of human life when a zygote is aborted, since it is not yet human. At that point, it is simply a part of the mother, in much the same way as a flake of skin, or a wart.

Lucinda: While I would agree that the miscarriage article shows that there is quite a bit of emotional meaning to the subject, I would have disagree that it has such a meaning to "all concerned." Remember, here we are talking about unwanted pregnancies, whereas in the miscarriage article, most of the respondents were very willing mothers-to-be. The subject we are discussing bears on the other end of the spectrum.

Actually the zygote may well be rightfully classified as a parasite:

par·a·site

3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

That last qualification may be met in an unwanted pregnancy.

Lucinda:

>>However, this is not a scientific dividing line: you are talking about the donated heart as having "no meaning", while the foetus "does have meaning". You distinguish between a "community" or "living system" and other sorts of system, and say that mother+foetus is the latter without saying why.<<

Actually I am saying that mother+foetus is a living community. Although a parasite and its host have many bonds, the parasite is still a seperate entity. If you remove it from its host it is still a parasite, a complete self-contained living system. The foetus is seperate from the mother in much the same way. Although it is fully dependent upon the mother for survival, it too is a self-contained living system. An organ is not. It is a part of a living system.

>>Incidentally, I as a human am certainly not made up of "inseperable parts" - most of my parts are all too seperable, from skin to organs to teeth to nails to...<<

Although you can be ripped limb from limb, those parts no longer have meaning in that they don't do anything for you. Therefore, your limbs are inseperable from your body in that they do not function without the system.

>>Actualy, I would say that an aborted child has similar meaning to a miscarried child - and a read through of the miscarriage entry - http://www.h2g2.com/A507773 - tells me that this is quite a big meaning to all concerned.<<

A miscarried child has no meaning in and of itself. I meant that in a more biological sense, not emotional. In like manner, an organ only has biologic meaning when functioning inside a living system.

Colonel Sellers:

>>That's right... a zygote is a *potential* life. But if you take the logic further, then so is a sperm and an egg.<<

I believe that I said earlier in this thread or another that potentiality doesn't matter. I do not believe that a zygote is a potential life anymore than I believe an egg or a sperm is a potential life. They all are alive. The question is human life. Therefore we have been trying to determine just what human life is. Potentiality may well be a deciding factor to determine if something is human or not. It is true that a zygote under normal, static* conditions will develop into a living, breathing human being. Right now I believe it is a human being that is neither breathing or living in the everyday sence. An egg and a sperm under normal, static conditions will not develop into a living, breathing human being. Therefore, in this sence of potentiality a sperm and an egg are not potential humans eventhough they have the potential to become human. The similarity between an egg and a zygote is the potentiality of the genetic code. The DNA of a zygote does not change. Under normal, static conditions the DNA of a sperm does not change either. Therefore, they (genetically) are what they are. A sperm is a sperm, a human is a human. There is no potentiality there.

>>A zygote is also not yet a human life... it is a mindless parasite, as you said (which really isn't any different than my virus or wart anaologies, so we can use your term for now). You're against abortion because killing a human is wrong. But in the early stages, it is not human yet... it is only a potential human.<<

That depends on what you mean by mindless. A virus and a sperm are mindless as well under that meaning. A zygote has all of the necessary information for development already in place. It has not yet developed. I think that you need to give me your definition of human for me to respond because under my definition, the zygote is human and a sperm is not.

>>As far as I know, the term zygote simply refers to a fertilized egg.<<

I think you're right as to the meaning of "zygote". You may not be in common usage (but you're right in that it doesn't matter).

>>At that point, it is simply a part of the mother, in much the same way as a flake of skin, or a wart.<<

No, it is more like a virus or a parasite. It is in the mother cirtainly, but it is seperate at the same time.

*by static I mean not deviating from the norm and having no abnormal external influences

So, to summarise, nosrestep... you're saying that some entity has full human rights, if and only if:

a) it is "biochemically alive".
b) it contains some human DNA
c) it has "biological meaning"

(b) I understand.

(a) requires you to pin down exactly when something is biochemically alive.

(c) requires you to pin down exactly when something has biological meaning.

Until you explain what your dividing line is, it seems pointless to argue for or against it, so I await your response...

>>it is "biochemically alive".<< >>requires you to pin down exactly when something is biochemically alive.<<

Well, the biochemical processes must be in place for the cell(s) to divide, manufacture proteins, recycle old ones, and other various tasks. If the organism has more than one cell, the cells must interact for the good of the whole. Therefore, virus', bacteria, fungus, and mice are all biochemically alive.

>>it has "biological meaning"<< >>requires you to pin down exactly when something has biological meaning.<<

Something has biological meaning when it is both biologically alive and performing tasks to aid in its survival.

So someone who's about to commit suicide because the world is all too difficult is neither biochemically alive, nor do they have biological meaning.

Anyone with cancer is no longer biochemically alive by that definition.

Anyone with asthma, come to that, or someone with unwanted histamine where they've been bitten.

According to your definition of "biological meaning," the child has no meaning until it is physically born. Until then, it performs no tasks to aid its survival (breathing, eating, drinking, defecating, as well as reacting to stimuli such as danger situations), depending entirely on the mother to carry out those tasks. I think you've just argued for the legality of abortion up to and including the 36th week, and beyond if necessary.

This post has been removed.

well, on your definition of biochemically alive, which I remind you is:

> "the biochemical processes must be in place for the cell(s) to divide, manufacture proteins, recycle old ones, and other various tasks. If the organism has more than one cell, the cells must interact for the good of the whole. Therefore, virus', bacteria, fungus, and mice are all biochemically alive."

If someone is about to kill themselves, then the cells of their brain are certainly not acting for the good of the whole.

If someone has a cancer, then the cells of that cancer are certainly not acting for the good of the whole human - yet they might well be considered to be part of the victim - they have the same DNA, for example.

In the case of someone with asthma, or someone suffering excessive pain from a small bite, the cells which have caused the asthma (were the heck did you get bacteria from???) or have generated and directed the histamine flood are not acting for the good of the whole human.

Not forgetting that in many parts of any human the cells are in fact biochemically inactive - like the teeth, nails, hair, top layer of skin, and so forth.

So you'll be wanting to refine your definition again, eh?

wow.

i must say that before i came back to this thread, i held the belief that the fetus was human at conception, but i was pro-choice anyway. and i am very surprised to say that it has been nosretep's definitions that have changed my mind. i think i now believe that a fetus becomes human at about 12 weeks. why? it's a nice even number somewhere between 8 and 16, and i just like the number 12.

nosretep, can you tell me in a simple fashion, on a fundamental level, why is abortion wrong?

Lucinda:

>>If someone is about to kill themselves, then the cells of their brain are certainly not acting for the good of the whole.<<

Possibly excepting neurological disorders, a conscious decision can hardly be the fault of cells. We all have free will. We can all choose to kill ourselves. The cells of the brain themselves are still doing good. They are controlling resperation, heart beat and innumerable biochemical processes in order for the system to continue functioning. I will ignore this and move on to your better examples.

>>If someone has a cancer, then the cells of that cancer are certainly not acting for the good of the whole human - yet they might well be considered to be part of the victim - they have the same DNA, for example.<<

Ok, so you are saying that a part of the victim is not acting for the whole. Therefore, that part has no biological meaning. It is however biologically alive. How then does the victim lose biological meaning?

>>In the case of someone with asthma, or someone suffering excessive pain from a small bite, the cells which have caused the asthma (were the heck did you get bacteria from???) or have generated and directed the histamine flood are not acting for the good of the whole human.<<

That's not necessarily true. But ok, lets say that some cells lose their biological meaning. Lets say the body has no need for them. Lets even say that the body seeks them out and destroys them. What does that mean? I said, for something to be biochemically alive that "If the organism has more than one cell, the cells must interact for the good of the whole." So now, we have some "renegade" cells in an organism. The question is: if some cells harm the system, does the system lose biochemical life under my definition. No. The cells that harm the organism do not lesson the fact that others do work together. If none of them do work together, the organism will die even if parts maintain biochemical life. Perhaps my definition should not be so abstract. Do you have another suggestion?

st. broelan:

Welcome back.

>>nosretep, can you tell me in a simple fashion, on a fundamental level, why is abortion wrong?<<

In saying abortion is wrong, I am assuming that all humans have a natural right to life unless they forsake that right. I also assert that a fertilized egg is human. Therefore abortion is wrong because it takes an innocent human life. Which of those assertions do you believe are false?

> "a conscious decision can hardly be the fault of cells"

Of course it can - what else could it be the result of? Not individual cells, but the cells as they interact together to create a "mind". Incidentaly, the brain doesn't regulate the heart-beat - that's adrenaline and suchlike.

> "Therefore, that part[cancer] has no biological meaning"

I'm not saying that, I'm saying that by your definition the human is no longer biochemically alive, because *all* its parts are not acting together.

> "Do you have another suggestion?"

Personally, I think your "biochemically alive" is a meaningless and unworkable idea. I think your definition is about as rock-hard as a large pile of marshmallows - and so you have no scientific or logical basis for declaring that the instant an egg has been fertilised it is suddenly has full human rights, and not a second before then.

I can't conceive of such a basis - just like I can't conceive of a basis that full human rights accrew at birth and not a second before then. Nothing you've said has convinced me otherwise...