On 18/07/2006, at 3:20 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
The question is, at what point does the "organism" become a fully-
fledged member of the group? You say at conception. Possessing
a full complement of chromosomes suddenly makes you fully human.
Well, others disagree. Some think it's when implantation occurs.
Others, at the point where the foetus is capable of independent
survival (this is approximately my position at present). Others
still, at birth or a
specified time thereafter and still others, at the point when the
child achieves full self-awareness.
That's all well and good Charlie, but at now point have you
defending your original assertion that rights are a "sliding
scale." You have argued that different people have different
scales - but you have described all of those scales as being "black-
and-white." You have not described any of them as being "sliding."
Huh? I thought it was clear - at different times, you have a
different level of rights. You gain more rights as you achieve new
levels. The right to vote, to drive, to healthcare, to drink. And the
right to live. The question is not whether these exist, it's at what
point they apply. You say, at conception the right to life is
endowed. I say, at the point when you can survive as an individual
without direct biological support from your mother, the right to life
is endowed.
That's the sliding scale - the increase in rights. And the loss of
rights too. A brain-dead shell on total life support is not a human,
it's a cadaver with a heartbeat. The right to choose life passes to
the relatives.
A blastocyst is not a child to most people, John. Many, possibly
most according to some studies, zygotes *fail to implant*
and "die" in the toilet or soaked up in a panty-liner. The
wastage
is naturally huge. Clearly, until they're able to implant,
they're disposable, *biologically* speaking.
Sorry, Charlie, but this is not sound logic. The logical
conculsion
of what you are saying is that "if the infant mortality rate is
high, then infanticide is morally acceptable." I hope that
makes
it clear.
Utterly false connection. An infant is an independent and
individual. A blastocyst is not.
I completely disagree. The zygote clearly exists in its own space,
has its own genetic code, and that genetic code is clearly human.
So does a metastasis stage cancer cell.
I
see no biological basis for classifying the cells of the zygote as
part of some other organisim, so therfore it is its own organism.
It has no organs. How can it be an organism?
Also biologically speaking, this organism must be classified as the
member of some species, and that species is clearly homo sapiens
sapiens. So, that's my view on an individual. Out of curiosity -
what makes one an independent individual and what makes one a non-
individual in your mind?
Surviving without direct biological support. A new-born baby is an
individual. It has broken the direct link, budded away from the
mother. Individual. A ball of cells that is unimplanted is just a
ball of cells.
Cancer is undifferentiated balls of cells too. Is a tumour
a "human"?
A tumor is clearly a growth of an existing individual.
Really? Some cancer cells function like amoeba. Motile. Others grow
in clumps. In fact, they can be removed and cultured indefinitely.
They have human DNA. They feed, grow and multiply quite happily. So
clearly, according to you, they're human.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa for an example of a human-cell
culture.
Charlie
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
