Again, killing a coma victim produces no suffering. Many adult humans are unable to maintain homeostasis. Zygotes are living individuals, yet they have no organs They are organized, living, independent systems of human life. What are they if not human organisms? Why? If you're argument is that a zygote isn't a human being because it can't survive "on its own," neither can anybody. The only difference is what we require to survive.
I don't have a problem with you taking your morning after pill if it makes you feel better. AT that point, you really don't know if you're pregnant or not. And seeing as children are not a blessing to leftists, especially leftists who drop their drawers at a moment's notice, then sure. Go ahead and take the morning after pill. That will just mean less leftists in the long run, i'm hoping. Not to mention you're not replacing yourself.
Because there is a big difference between preventing the future appearance of the NEW mind never existing in the past (the first beginning of existence), and terminating "paused" mind of comatose person which existed in the past as a person, now exists in paused state and can REactivate. The mind (and memories) of the person is still there, encoded in the neural network. Its the same difference as preventing the appearance of completely new persons (for example with contraception) vs. terminating already existing persons, or theoretically preventing medical resurrection of dead persons, if such technology becomes available. Preventing first appearance of something which never existed is morally not the same terminating something which exists or preventing REappearance. We dont consider preventing reproduction as murder.
Of course it does to the loved ones? Who suffers in case of an abortion? Yes, that are called dead people. Independent you say? Why the need of a host then? In the early stages. the building block of the future human being. Then we are all dead, yet here we are maintaining our own life processes, which of course zygotes can not. Yea, like not needing the organs and body of someone. When was the last time you used the body of anyone to sustain your own life?
I am sorry, but that is not how it works, you do not get to define anything that the rest o society has to abide by and there are only VERY few possible exceptions to it and you do not qualify for any. You are not a dictator or supreme ruler, nor the highest authority in biology. Care to play again? Indeed, yet you are willing to pervert that for self serving purposes.
You can define it this way, sure, but I agree that this isn't commonly what people mean when they use the term "human being". But let's go with this. So you define human being scientifically, based upon what genetics a particular microorganism has and what gene expressions are present. So the question is why should we extend the philosophical construct of personhood to this entity?
Again, what if he loses all his memories then? Sperms and eggs are not independent human organism, while fertilized eggs are. Fertilized eggs contain all the necessary information encoded (as you say) to be human minds. Thus, the basic foundation of the mind does exist, even though the elements of volition, sentience, etc, are not in appearance. Just as with the coma victim. Well, so do some abortions. There are many cases of women aborting fetuses against the wishes of the father. And what is coma victim has no friends or family?
Yes. Being a living organism of any species does not require a particular number of cells. The cell in question does has life processes or otherwise it could not survive. It's not entirely self-sustaining, but no life is entirely self-sustaining, so I don't think that's a good argument either. What is the coma victim had no loved ones. What if the father of the fetus and the grandparents opposed the abortion? No, they are called sick or dying people or people requiring intervention to stay alive. It just means you can't maintain an internal balance: "Many diseases are a result of disturbance of homeostasis, a condition known as homeostatic imbalance. As it ages, every organism will lose efficiency in its control systems. The inefficiencies gradually result in an unstable internal environment that increases the risk for illness....Diseases that result from a homeostatic imbalance include diabetes, dehydration, hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, gout, and any disease caused by a toxin present in the bloodstream." Independent in the sense that they are distinct and unique systems. Nobody is independent in the sense you mean. Babies are certainly not independent of their mothers in that sense. I'm not independent of the biosphere-level systems that provide me with air, food, and water. Nonetheless, I am an individual organism. Heck, I'd say you could make a better argument that Siamese twins are the same organism than a fetus and its mother. Yet we nonetheless consider Siamese twins two human beings. Right now. If I couldn't make use of the millions of bodies involved in growing my food, transporting it to my supermarket, providing the capital to allow me to earn money doing my job, purifying my water, etc, I might be dead right now. How well do you think you'd survive on a deserted island? I'm presenting a logical argument that it's a human organism for you to try to refute. You haven't to my satisfaction. How do you define organism and why and why doesn't a fetus fit that definition? It's not dead. It's not the same thing as the mother. It's not non-human. What quality does it lack that makes it unworthy of the term "human being" to you? That it's not self-sustaining? But none of us are!
Yes, but as I said you do not get to make your own definitions. But it does require that life processes be maintained by the organism itself. Is that why it needs the organs of the pregnant woman? Do you understand what homeostasis is? The it is not an organism. I am sorry, but science does not make allowances for "but" it requires precision. I suggest a refresher course in biology or at least some more reading.
It's what I've always thought it meant. It's logical. I think most people would see this as obvious if it weren't politicized. I would say that it is the nature of people to posses unique and independent minds with the qualities of sentience, sapience, and volition. Now, zygotes do not have minds, as has been pointed out. However, this is merely a temporary and transient state in the case of the zygote that will cease being the case if the zygote is left to develop according to its nature with no intervention. Therefore, I put it in the same category as a person in a coma or a severely mentally disabled person, who may lack one or more of the qualities above, but these are symptomatic and often temporary states that are not fundamental to the nature of the person, but the result of injury or some other affliction. Similarly it is the nature of all human beings to possess those qualities even if they are still in the process of developing them.
You need to show me where I'm wrong. Otherwise, you're not making an argument. My life processes aren't wholly maintained by me. Did you read what I wrote? Do you think a person on a respirator is in a state of homeostasis? We'd all be dead but for an external environment and often other human beings helping to keep us alive.
If it is irreversible the plug is pulled if it is temporary there is always someone, besides societall norms should not be based on extremes. What if? And when those interventions fail they pull the plug. A disturbance is not the same a total lack. But you are failing at it. The refutation is in the fact that it does not meet the criteria to be considered an organism. In biology, an organism is any contiguous living system (such as animal, fungus, micro-organism, or plant). In at least some form, all organisms are capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development, and maintenance of homoeostasis as a stable whole. No one disputed that, then again so is the sperm and egg. Who said it was? Not in contention. Self sustained life. But we are, unless of course you are hooked up to some other person.
Are you on life support? Yes, did you understand what I wrote? Yes. Irrelevant, it has nothing to do with ability to maintain life.
It may be logical, but as it stands I fail to see where. Your definition highlights the scientific fact that the zygote is developing, and isn't yet what its genetic potential offers. As you say... a "fully grown adult human". So to classify it as a fully grown adult human when it is not yet a fully grown adult human doesn't seem logical to me. It isn't scientifically accurate. Human cells are never placed into the species classification of taxonomy. I'm not sure how you can place a single cell with these particular gene expressions into the same category as a fully developed human being in a coma. One has a mind or has had a mind, the other does not and has never. I've already shown how it is not done, and is inaccurate to do so, scientifically speaking. It looks as if you're arguing a philosophical position regarding personhood, but disguising it as a scientific fact (when it is not). Scientifically, the zygote is not a human being. You may believe philosophically that it is, and I'd like to know why.
No, there is not always someone, and what if the person didn't want the plug pulled? You're argument was based partly on the idea that if no one cared about the individual, you could kill it. Don't try to sneak out of this. Zygotes don't totally lack homeostasis either! They are able to engage in some bodily functions independently and without outside but not others. Just like the rest of us. How does the zygote not fit this definition? Unfertilized eggs and sperm are not "contiguous living systems" but only part of them. I might be. Siamese twins are. But even barring that, we are still dependent on outside forces and generally other human beings for life. We require oxygen, water, and food in particular. We could not survive in a vacuum. I don't see why being physically attached to someone else makes all the difference. Of course it does. The inability to maintain our lives has nothing to do with the inability to maintain our lives. You also suggest a person on a respirator is n homeostasis but a fetus isn't? I see no difference.
guys. Why do you believe everything you hear out of the left. santorum does not oppose contraception. Honestly. I'd be ashamed to be so gullible.
They are if they're whole, separate organisms. The number of cells and the level of development don't define whether it's an organism or not. I think my position that zygotes are human organisms is biological and my position that all human organisms are persons with rights is philosophic.
There IS always someone. If not insurance company that is paying for it than the state. No one is kept alive when the recovery takes a miracle. No sneaking and not the basis of my argument. Of course they do. Homeostasis is made possible by organs and zygotes do not have any. Homeostasis. I did not claim they were, only that they too were life. Not for homeostasis and that is what defines us a independent living entities. That is your problem. What are you attempting to say?
