This is third in a series (started here) of an email conversation about beginning of life issues.
---
Hello,
Could you please provide some resources for the [non-destructive?] ESCR procedure you describe below? I can't find any with ease. What happens to the embryonic human when the stem cell is extracted? Implanted into woman? Discarded? Dies (I assume not)?
It is refreshing to hear that you think the "personhood" concept is "patently ridiculous".
"Would you propose a woman who illegally purchases a morning-after pill, or has an abortion before organogenisis be punished in the same manner as a mother who killed her toddler?"
Abortion, the Pill, and the "morning-after pill" were once illegal. They can be again. When they were illegal before, the punishments were not equal for each crime against humanity. Further, the doctor usually received the punishment in accordance with the severity with the crime. Nonetheless, abortion was still a crime.
Even M. Sanger (founder of Pl. Parenthood) said, "While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization." and "...abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life.." (from "Margaret Sanger Was Against Abortion?")
"What about other organisms besides humans, is there something, in your opinion, that makes a [I assume "human"] fertilized egg "better" or more deserving of life, than an animal without [I assume you meant "with", not "without"] the sense of self-awereness?"
Actually, it's a human zygote. Calling it a "fertilized egg" is like calling you and me a "fertilized egg" at our current stages of devel. A human zygote is part of the human family, the animal (mature) is not. From the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights<, "...the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world..." "Binary system"? What do you mean by this (please clarify)? Either one is alive or dead? Black and white for morality/ethical nature of abortion/destructive ESCR? Thank you in advance for your reply.
gbm3
---
I am running low of time for today, so I apologize in advance for the inarticulate manner in which I will be attempting to answer your questions as soon as possible. I actually did mean "without" a sense of self-awareness. While the capacity for self-awareness if difficult to test in animals, it is impossible for it to exist in an embryo of any type before the creation of even the most rudimentary of neural systems. I do not look to any religious system OR man made entity such as the UN as my source of guidence about how to regard other living creatures. Whether or not abortion is made illegal again, it will continue, if you believe it can be stopped by purely legal means than you are doing nothing but perpetuating an illusion. People will still be able to obtain the drugs and even the procedure itself via illegal means. As a religious person, and therefore a student of the nature of humanity, do you really believe humans, especially scared, desperate ones, wouldn't do these things, just because the government threatened them? Here are links to four scientific papers addressing the topic of morula-derived stem cells:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109898906/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/303/5664/1669
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15670408
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120703181/abstract
By binary system I do indeed mean that I do not see life as a black and white situation. Before you formed a brain, your cells were alive, yet when your brain dies, "you" will be considered dead, even though many cells in your body will still be functional. It is an uncommon position, I do not expect anyone to sympathize with it, and I understand many people actually find it somewhat unpleasant.
Furthermore, you are twisting what I said in regards to "personhood" and while I apologize for any unintentional obfuscation on my part (I do not believe it is possible to say "this is a person and that is not" based on legally-decided criteria, but I will admit I do not believe a zygote is the same as a child, it has the potential to become one.) I must also state that I am somewhat taken aback by your manner of drawing attention to the matter.
Again, please forgive my terseness, and I thank you for being so civil, despite our different backgrounds. I look forward to hearing from you again, but I must also warn you that I may not have as much time to write long emails after tomorrow.
-ThiZ
A very interesting exchange!
ReplyDeleteI have one question that I think might shed some light on the difference between our worldviews.
"From the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights<, "...the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world..."
Personally, I disagree with this statement. The question is this: Suppose we encounter another form of being; we meet an intelligent alien race, we create an electronic artificial intelligence. In whatever form the being exists, the key is that it is as intelligent and self-aware, and possesses a moral consciousness, comparable to developed human beings. Should we consider such beings to possess moral worth? To have "personhood," for lack of a better term?
Thank you for taking the time to read the exchange. Did you read the entire thing (all parts, etc.)?
ReplyDeleteWith what specific part(s) of the UN Declaration did you not agree?
Regarding your question, I think discussing the set of known entities is more central to the abortion/ESCR issue rather than discussing the "what ifs" of what hasn't actually been shown to exist at all. This is the strength and downfall of arguments regarding fiction (like the Star Trek: TNG episode where Data is on trial for proving his moral worth is equal to those of humans; it's interesting to contemplate, but, in the end, it's a relatively irrelevant thought experiment). I'd rather argue in non-fictional terms.
However, let's discuss it.
You said, "the key is that it is as intelligent and self-aware, and possesses a moral consciousness, comparable to developed human beings." If said (nonexistent) aliens had the same level of your criteria at any stage of their development, they would be equivalent to fully developed humans as far as moral worth. As far as the (nonexistent) electronic artificial intelligence, as long as it actually had the fully developed human equivalent, it would have moral worth.
This is the quirky part about discussing between biological and non-biological beings. Non-biological beings only have the (passive) potential to be fully developed human equivalents in moral worth. Biological beings have the capacity (active potential) to be fully developed human equivalents in moral worth as soon as they come into being as said individuals (assuming sexual reproduction when gender assigned; in asexual reproductions (ameoba/twinning of fe/male), the worth would be continuous since each individual would be the equvilent in all moral aspects).
If the non-biological being is turned off, it would essentially be dead; they only have a pasive potential to be turned on (someone/thing else has to turn them on). If a biological human sleeps/coma/etc., they have the capacity to wake up, therefore they continue to have worth.
I read the exchange pretty thoroughly, though if you think I might have missed something relevant, don't hesitate to point it out.
ReplyDeleteThe UN declaration: I only take issue with the specification of a single biological species of organism (human beings, obviously). This directly relates to my question.
I understand your issues with the hypothetical scenario. I only bring it up because it was this question that swung me around to a generally pro-choice position after being pro-life for years (even for years after giving up my religious belief).
I think that the largest disagreement between our two positions is on the distinction between passive and active potential. You've given examples; a monarch butterfly has "active" potential, due to it changing internally, whereas a pile of scrap metal that could become a car or an artificial intelligence that is currently turned "off" are examples of "passive" potential, clearly needing outside action to realize that potential.
I think I'm a little confused about your position. It seems obvious to me that a fetus absolutely needs the direct action of outside agents to survive and develop to its potential. The action of the mother is needed at a minimum, at some point, the fetus could potentially survive outside of the mother, but only with complete medical care and artificial sustenance, etc. So I'm not sure why we would grant "active" status to a fetus, instead of mere "passive" status.
I would argue that such a distinction is irrelevant to determining a being's "personhood" status, anyway. For example, take a comparable situation to your example of an A.I. being that is "turned off." There are actual medical situations in which a patent is in a comatose state by deliberate action of medical personnel, and will only come out of it via their direct action. Does this mean that the person in question should only be granted "passive" potential for personhood? Obviously, I disagree with such an assessment, thus my conclusion that the "active vs. passive potential" is irrelevant.
I look forward to your thoughts!
Thanks for getting back.
ReplyDeleteI have a better understanding of your objection to the UN Declaration. I recently read A World Made New by M.A. Glendon that looked at the history of its development directly after WWII. The UN Declaration only looked at one subject of the set of biological species, i.e., the human subject (human family), since the Nazis viewed subsets of the human species (races/religions) as non-persons which was deemed utterly illogical (and one cause of war). I don't think the other biological entities where explicitly excluded: they weren't the focus of the document (however, there hasn't since been a UN Declaration (or peacekeeping missions) about ending intra- or inter-species war between, say, lions and zebras).
(Just-in-case correction of "a monarch butterfly has 'active' potential". Actually, a monarch caterpillar has the active potential to become a monarch butterfly.)
"It seems obvious to me that a fetus absolutely needs the direct action of outside agents to survive and develop to its potential."
Actually, the only "direct action" required for the mother in the life of the fe/male zygote (etc) is the action of joining the sperm and egg. Once that takes place, the zygote develops in the ways that s/he is programmed to develop (my son is programmed to start loosing his teeth at about 6-7 in Earth air). Other than that, providing an environment for the zygote by the mother is a natural part of her body functions like breathing, digesting, or ovulating (making the zygote not a parasite, but the woman's offspring. BTW, part of the def. of living is the capacity to reproduce as a mature biological entity). Are you familiar with the SLED test? The "E" environment of the subject is irrelevant regarding the moral nature of the subject itself. If someone placed me in water for a substantial time, I would die (drown). If someone placed a fresh water fish in salt water or air, it would die, but wouldn't change its moral worth (it has no active/passive potential to become a normal, mature adult equivalent).
Under normal, or ordinary circumstances, the mother naturally provides the suitable environment for the zygote. It takes her or some third party's "direct action" to remove said zygote from its environment (or poison/dismember) to directly/consciously kill it (abortion with motive and intent). Under normal circumstances, a mature human's (say, >30 yrs) natural environment is in Earth air (etc; Class M). If said mature human is put into an alternative environment, say, liquid water, s/he drowns. His/her moral worth does not change.
The relevant distinction between passive and active potential is not related to survival (environmental factors/medical status); it's related to the moral status of the entity. Let's take your comatose patient. It doesn't matter if the patient is comatose, how they became comatose, or how they come out of the coma, their moral worth is maintained distinct from their potential for survival.
For sake of discussion/argument, as long as the intentionally comatose patient is alive, they have the active potential to wake up; they also maintain the active potential to have the faculties of a normal, mature adult equivalent throughout the procedure. You said, "[the intentionally comatose patient] will only come out of it via [the doctor's] direct action." I don't think the direct action of the doctor is the only way they can wake up. They could eventually wake up; if they don't they'll eventually die and the doctor should be investigated for malpractice (maybe murder/manslaughter?).
(con't below)
(from above)
ReplyDeleteUltimately, the distinction between active and passive potential is crucial to the understanding of continuous moral worth in humans. Without it, the utterly illogical position of killing comatose, sleeping, and mentally handicap humans could be legitimized. Further, the important caveat (due to the number of cases) is that fe/male humans from fertilization forward are not to be directly killed in abortion.
Sorry it's taken me so long to respond. I've been incredibly busy these past few weeks. This is an important topic, though, so don't hesitate to remind me about it.
ReplyDelete"Actually, the only "direct action" required for the mother in the life of the fe/male zygote (etc) is the action of joining the sperm and egg."
A fertilized egg will die if left outside of the nourishment of it's mother's body. If the external nourishment that is *required* for life is not the criteria for "active" potential, then our robot with A.I. that requires someone to turn it on would fall into the "person" category.
You seem to be stating a difference of "active" vs. "passive" potential based on whether the life-form in question has the information required for it's existence present within it's bodily structure. If that's the case, then the framework of this discussion is totally different. In that case, we do have a "person" in the A.I. robot that happens to be turned off, and in the comatose patient who will not awaken without direct medical intervention.
So I agree that environment is irrelevant to the moral worth of a given being, but I still don't know precisely what criteria you are using.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that the best, most objective criteria for determining "personhood," and thus moral worth, is whether a sentient, self-aware moral consciousness *currently* exists.
I strongly object to any criteria of "potential" future personhood, and thus a moral judgment concerning prevention of that person from coming into being. Any distinction between different points of prevention seems entirely arbitrary to me. By way of an example, I see no meaningful distinction between interrupting a pregnancy two days after conception, or interrupting a sexual relationship two days before conception. In both cases the potential parents are intervening in the process that would, under different circumstances, result in the development of a new person. As the "new person" in question does not, in fact, exist yet, I see no reason to pass moral judgment on one intervention, and not on the other.
Thanks for taking the time to get back to the debate.
ReplyDelete(Aside: "Fertilized egg" is a misnomer since an egg has no gender but a zygote is a male or female.)
Regarding the asserted fact that "*required*" external nourishment is a criteria for "active" potential, if that is the case, you and I have the "active" potential to become persons. We both need air to breathe, water to drink, and food to eat, but we are both actual persons when awake and have the capacity to be persons when asleep or in a coma. I understand this seems strange, but the statement has to be made for the first part of my point.
The second point comes from when you wrote, "You seem to be stating a difference of 'active' vs. 'passive' potential based on whether the life-form in question has the information required for it's existence present within it's bodily structure." This is incorrect. I believe it is half the answer: the "life-form" itself has the "information required for it's existence present within it's bodily structure" AND itself acts internally on said information.
Lets take a relatively simple example: the monarch. The monarch caterpillar has the capacity to become a monarch butterfly (have wings). The said info is "present within [the monarch caterpillar's] bodily structure" to become a monarch butterfly AND itself acts internally on said information. No external jolt or switch tells the monarch caterpillar to create a chrysalis, form wings, or break out of the chrysalis. The whole time, also, the caterpillar receives/gathers required sustenance (air/leaves) for its survival, but it is still a monarch without wings. In a similar manner, a human zygote is a human without high-level thought (etc).
"It seems to me that the best, most objective criteria for determining 'personhood,' and thus moral worth, is whether a sentient, self-aware moral consciousness *currently* exists."
Then, is it morally permissible to kill a mature human when they are asleep or in a coma? Neither have the stated current "sentient, self-aware moral consciousness" criteria present.
"By way of an example, I see no meaningful distinction between interrupting a pregnancy two days after conception, or interrupting a sexual relationship two days before conception."
If no "new person" exists, I agree that there is no argument to be made. The crux of the argument depends on the fact or fiction that a (fertilized) human zygote is a person.
I have one new thing to add for your consideration:
Consider this inductive reasoning argument:
Assume: Actual properties of adult human (high reasoning/moral conscience/etc) are required for moral worth.
Postulate: When sleep, coma, etc., adult human does not have actual properties of adult human, only capacity for such.
Postulate: When sleep, coma, etc., an adult human that does NOT have actual properties of adult human has moral worth.
Conclusion: Actual properties of adult human (high reasoning/moral conscience/etc) are NOT required for moral worth, only capacity for such.
Corollary: A human zygote has capacity for properties of adult human, therefore, they have moral worth.
"'Actually, the only "direct action" required for the mother in the life of the fe/male zygote (etc) is the action of joining the sperm and egg.'
ReplyDeleteA [fe/male zygote] will die if left outside of the nourishment of it's mother's body. If the external nourishment that is *required* for life is not the criteria for 'active' potential, then our robot with A.I. that requires someone to turn it on would fall into the 'person' category."
Could you elaborate more on this point more than you have above? I don't exactly see your connection between the human zygote and the A.I. entity as it relates to "active potential".
Let me make two more observations.
"A [fe/male zygote] will die if left outside of the nourishment of it's mother's body."
How will the zygote get outside the mother's body (besides, of course, miscarriage)? A direct action of the mother or third party is required. Otherwise, the zygote will internally cause its development to occur in concert with his/her environment.
Look at the monarch caterpillar again. As it internally knows to gather and actually gathers materials for development (air/leaves), it internally develops to the monarch butterfly with wings.
Finally, recall towards what the "active potential" or capacity is directed. It's to become a mature adult with their respective properties (wings/moral reasoning). It's not to have the "active potential" to obtain nutrients. (Maybe I'm just missing something to your point in the leading quote. Please be patient. Thanks.)
See here for two personhood proofs.
ReplyDeleteThanks.