Abortion

[Sprite]

While it is undoubtedly an exception, I know of someone who has a tattoo of the birth flower of the due date month of their aborted foetus. I can see the sense in that, even if it isn't common.

What I've learnt from that person is that there can be moments of regret/grief, but I believe they still thought it the right decision

Agree, I’ve know a work colleague do a similar thing, less tattoo and more birthstone in a pendant.

However I’ve also known another work colleague who regretted nothing about her abortion due to pregnancy after rape. We’ve had quite frank and harrowing discussions and her rape did more damage than the abortion ever could have. Mentally and physically.

 

[Danoff]

Agree, I’ve know a work colleague do a similar thing, less tattoo and more birthstone in a pendant.

One for every month they presumably ovulated and didn't actively try to get pregnant, one would assume.

I wonder if there are any examples of men that do the same - torture themselves over a decision* not to attempt to carry a fetus to term. "S.O. got an abortion" or "S.O. made me use a condom" tattoos or pendants. Maybe a "I should have moved to Texas" neck chain.

* Admittedly, ultimately not theirs

 

[Sprite]

One for every month they presumably ovulated and didn't actively try to get pregnant, one would assume.

I wonder if there are any examples of men that do the same - torture themselves over a decision* not to attempt to carry a fetus to term. "S.O. got an abortion" or "S.O. made me use a condom" tattoos or pendants. Maybe a "I should have moved to Texas" neck chain.

* Admittedly, ultimately not theirs

I think her regret was it’s potential, however I don’t really know.

It could have been a knowledge gap of knowing when the embryo becomes a human and she has conflated the two, however I didn’t feel the want or need to point that out to her at the time as I didn’t feel like it would have helped her state of mind when talking about it.

I would have also hoped the clinic/Dr’s/Hospital would have covered that with her, so knowledge gap had been filled and eased her worries. We didn’t discuss that though.

It’s possible this is something which biology classes should cover more in depth at school level so young women have a clearer knowledge about the whole pregnancy process in humans and other mammals. If I remember my GCSE classes, it was relatively basic and abortion wasn’t covered.

I think sperm killing t-shirts maybe a thing already. I know Monty Python did a song about it.

 

[Danoff]

I think her regret was it’s potential, however I don’t really know.

There is an infinite amount of potential to regret.

 

[Jezza819]

I think her regret was it’s potential, however I don’t really know.

It could have been a knowledge gap of knowing when the embryo becomes a human and she has conflated the two, however I didn’t feel the want or need to point that out to her at the time as I didn’t feel like it would have helped her state of mind when talking about it.

I would have also hoped the clinic/Dr’s/Hospital would have covered that with her, so knowledge gap had been filled and eased her worries. We didn’t discuss that though.

It’s possible this is something which biology classes should cover more in depth at school level so young women have a clearer knowledge about the whole pregnancy process in humans and other mammals. If I remember my GCSE classes, it was relatively basic and abortion wasn’t covered.

I think sperm killing t-shirts maybe a thing already. I know Monty Python did a song about it.

That clip has to be banned immediately. There is a man dressed as a woman and there are children present. Lots of children.

 

[UKMikey]

Contrary to Thatcher's belief, this Monty Python, he is not one of "us".

 

[Danoff]

Sperm and egg combine to form a single cell called a zygote. Your body right now contains approximately 30ish trillion human cells. None of them is a human, but all of them are human. A zygote is not a human, but it is a human cell, and it is only one.

The cells of the zygote divide, repeatedly, and the chemicals within the cells end up with an uneven distribution during this splitting, the uneven distribution interacts with the DNA of the cell and causes the split cells to take on different properties. Ultimately cells take on very different properties in building up what eventually is a human baby with something like 20-30 billion cells after many splits.

If a zygote is a single second (instead of a single cell), and a baby is 26 billion seconds (instead of 26 billion cells), a baby is 824 years. The difference between the composition of a zygote and the composition of a baby can be analogized to the difference between the composition of a second and 824 years.

A zygote is a cell, it has a wall, it has some goo, and it has genetic information (in the form of a chain of nucleic acids). It is not a baby, and it is not destined to become a baby. Many, many many, zygotes do not form into babies. In a very real way, none of them do, they form into an entity with more cells. I've personally followed the progress of quite a few zygotes that ultimately stop dividing, for one reason or another. It's not a dead baby, it's a set of human cells that stopped dividing. A mind was not lost, a consciousness was not lost, a soul was not lost, a personality was not lost, you can even say that a potential baby was not lost. For whatever reason, and I'm sure there are quite a few, a set of cells stopped dividing, it wasn't going to form into a baby. It fulfilled its ultimate development at whatever stage the arrest occurred.

It's important for pro-lifers to understand this process, so that they can understand the absolute insanity that is sacrificing a human being with 30 trillion human cells, with a mind, a personality, with social connections and what we would call a human life, for the sake of a cell, a cell that has none of those things, and which may stop dividing at any moment for any of a number of reasons.

You cannot see the future. A zygote, an embryo, is what it is in that moment, not what you imagine it to be in the future. And in that moment, it is a cell or a combination of a few cells that are undergoing a chemical reaction. More can be said about you, but that's because you have properties that a single cell, or a handful of cells, simply does not and cannot.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Sperm and egg combine to form a single cell called a zygote. Your body right now contains approximately 30ish trillion human cells. None of them is a human, but all of them are human. A zygote is not a human, but it is a human cell, and it is only one.

A zygote is a cell, it has a wall, it has some goo, and it has genetic information. It is not a baby, and it is not destined to become a baby. Many, many many, zygotes do not form into babies. I've personally followed the progress of quite a few zygotes that ultimately stop dividing, for one reason or another. It's not a dead baby, it's a set of human cells that stopped dividing. A mind was not lost, a consciousness was not lost, a soul was not lost, a personality was not lost, you can even say that a potential baby was not lost. For whatever reason, and I'm sure there are quite a few, a set of cells stopped dividing, it wasn't going to form into a baby. It fulfilled its ultimate development at whatever stage the arrest occurred.

Approaching it from a purely scientifically perspective, isn't it fair to say it is a separate human life (not be be confused with a "person")?

 

[Danoff]

Approaching it from a purely scientifically perspective, isn't it fair to say it is a separate human life (not be be confused with a "person")?

If you scratch one of your skin cells off of your hand, is it a separate human life?

A better analogy would be one that is inside of your body. Is a white blood cell a separate human life? What if the DNA of that white blood cell is different from yours (through cellular damage or via transfusion), is it a separate human life now?

 

[HenrySwanson]

If you scratch one of your skin cells off of your hand, is it a separate human life?

A better analogy would be one that is inside of your body. Is a white blood cell a separate human life? What if the DNA of that white blood cell is different from yours (through cellular damage or via transfusion), is it a separate human life now?

I'd say no, the threshold of difference in genetic material hasn't been reached to call it a life distinct from my own.

Cells die all the time in our bodies, but they aren't a different "entity" in the same way as a zygote/embryo/foetus is. It would be more accurate to call them as tissue of that particular human.

 

[Danoff]

I'd say no, the threshold of difference in genetic material hasn't been reached to call it a life distinct from my own.

Cells die all the time in our bodies, but they aren't a different "entity" in the same way as a zygote/embryo/foetus is. It would be more accurate to call them as tissue of that particular human.

In the case of a transfusion, a white blood cell has the DNA of another person. So where is the threshold?

Edit: It's worth mentioning organ transplants here, including organ transplants from pigs. But I went with something that is not physically "attached" to your body.

 

[HenrySwanson]

In the case of a transfusion, a white blood cell has the DNA of another person. So where is the threshold?

Edit: It's worth mentioning organ transplants here, including organ transplants from pigs. But I went with something that is not physically "attached" to your body.

Ah, I didn't see the reference to transfusion in your original post - I assumed you were talking about a mutation.

If we're talking about transplantation or blood transfusion then that is only part of the original organism (whether a cell/tissue/organ). An embryo/foetus (even a single celled zygote) would be classed as a whole organism. They're all technically alive, but are they all separate human lives?

Embryonic/foetal demise would extinguish that human life; the death of the white blood cell in the recipient's circulation would "only" be the death of the cell.

 

[Danoff]

Ah, I didn't see the reference to transfusion in your original post - I assumed you were talking about a mutation.

If we're talking about transplantation or blood transfusion then that is only part of the original organism (whether a cell/tissue/organ). An embryo/foetus (even a single celled zygote) would be classed as a whole organism. They're all technically alive, but are they all separate human lives?

Embryonic/foetal demise would extinguish that human life; the death of the white blood cell in the recipient's circulation would "only" be the death of the cell.

So it is not murder if your DNA exists elsewhere?

Suppose then we murder the blood donor. That is not the death of the organism since the donor's white blood cell is in your body, so part of them is still alive?

Edit:

I mean, technically, we could go one step crazier and say because you scratched a living skin cell off of your hand, that your "whole organism" is now spread across the main part of your body and also includes the living skin cell in your carpet. If someone comes by and kills you, then they have not killed the "whole organism" because you have a living skin cell in the carpet, and now you have a lot of your living white blood cells soaking into the carpet as well. Your living DNA is now spread across the room, and it is still alive, and since it is your DNA and it is a living cell, you are still alive.

 

[HenrySwanson]

The blood donor being murdered is the death of the organism - it's immaterial what their donated white blood cell is doing in another human since that isn't an organism.

I think we do create a distinction between embryos/foetuses and the parent in ways we wouldn't for other tissue. For example, there is a medical sub-specialty called maternal-foetal medicine (also known as perinatology) that has such a delineation in the name.

 

[Danoff]

The blood donor being murdered is the death of the organism - it's immaterial what their donated white blood cell is doing in another human since that isn't an organism.

What exactly is "the organism" then? I thought you were saying that it was defined by shared DNA. Since you've given something of an answer to your own question "isn't it fair to say it is a separate human life", I'll finally give you my answer.

It is life, it is human, and it is distinct (I'm not sure about "separate" but I think you did not mean it physically). So I do think it is fair to say that, in the way I think you're using "separate", it is a separate human life. But so is any living human cell, such as a white blood cell, a skin cell, a sperm cell, etc. We do not punish people for ending the lives of human cells.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Apologies, I should have been clearer.

I was talking in the biological sense of hierarchy, i.e. cell -> tissue -> organ -> system -> organism.

That's why I was equating a zygote with, say, an adult, and differentiating it from a white blood cell. Now obviously a zygote doesn't have the same rights as that adult, nor is it as complex, but it's functionally an individual human organism in the way a white blood cell isn't.

EDIT: While you're correct that we do not punish people for ending human cells, we do treat embryos slightly differently (easiest example being the 14 day rule)

 

[Danoff]

Apologies, I should have been clearer.

I was talking in the biological sense of hierarchy, i.e. cell -> tissue -> organ -> system -> organism.

That's why I was equating a zygote with, say, an adult, and differentiating it from a white blood cell. Now obviously a zygote doesn't have the same rights as that adult, nor is it as complex, but it's functionally an individual human organism in the way a white blood cell isn't.

Sperm then.

I'd like to better understand your argument. Are you arguing against this point specifically?

A zygote is not a human, but it is a human cell, and it is only one.

I said a zygote is not a human, and you seem to be arguing that it is - specifically a single-celled human organism. Is this the crux of your argument? If it is the crux of your argument, the entire white blood cell argument still applies - because the only thing the zygote, a single cell (at least at first), has that makes it "a human" is its DNA. But regardless, sperm is still a good counterargument.

EDIT: While you're correct that we do not punish people for ending human cells, we do treat embryos slightly differently (easiest example being the 14 day rule)

The 14 day rule is picked very arbitrarily and designed to be well below the threshold where most people's concerns lie while enabling research to be conducted.

 

[TexRex]

The 14 day rule is picked very arbitrarily and designed to be well below the threshold where most people's concerns lie while enabling research to be conducted.

This is the problem you run into, without exception, when determining the point at which the majority finds it acceptable to deprive a minority of agency over self on the overbroad basis that one has some capacity to carry offspring, as anti-choice vermin are so keen to do.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Sperm then.

I'd like to better understand your argument. Are you arguing against this point specifically?

That sperm is a human organism?

Yes I would. For a start it's haploid.

I said a zygote is not a human, and you seem to be arguing that it is - specifically a single-celled human organism. Is this the crux of your argument? If it is the crux of your argument, the entire white blood cell argument still applies - because the only thing the zygote, a single cell (at least at first), has that makes it "a human" is its DNA. But regardless, sperm is still a good counterargument.

It's more than the DNA. A zygote doesn't equal a white blood cell which doesn't equal a red blood cell (which doesn't even have DNA) etc, etc. It's the beginning stage of a new human life, not necessarily a new person (as we discussed previously).

The 14 day rule is picked very arbitrarily and designed to be well below the threshold where most people's concerns lie while enabling research to be conducted.

Where would you propose it be? I'm ignorant of the history so would have to do some research before I gave an opinion but am interested in your take.

 

[Danoff]

That sperm is a human organism?

Yes I would. For a start it's haploid.

It's more than the DNA. A zygote doesn't equal a white blood cell which doesn't equal a red blood cell (which doesn't even have DNA) etc, etc. It's the beginning stage of a new human life, not necessarily a new person (as we discussed previously).

A haploid is an organism. And sperm has human dna (albeit not complete). I'm not saying that sperm is indistinguishable from a zygote. I'm saying that if you're going to call a zygote "a human" you're going to run into some rather arbitrary distinctions based on what the zygote literally is at the time and what other things literally are at the time.

To the best of my understanding, the chief difference between the initial formation of a zygote and the sperm or egg that was used to create it, is the status of the DNA. Literally the state of a chain of nucleic acids is what we're hanging our hat on. The sperm was halfway there, and we couldn't be slightly bothered to preserve it. A white blood cell has the entire DNA within a cell and we don't care at all. And before you get on about the white blood cell not being "an organism", consider what the difference between a white blood cell and a zygote literally is. I'm out on a limb of my understanding of the science here, but I think the answer is not as big a difference as people assume - essentially active genes.

Where would you propose it be? I'm ignorant of the history so would have to do some research before I gave an opinion but am interested in your take.

That's a great question, and not one I can easily answer. We allow a lot of different kinds of testing on mice, far more than human embryos. And mice are significantly more advanced organisms than a 14-day-old human embryo. So I think we're quite inconsistent on this. Mice can feel pain, for example, and we don't give two shakes.

 

[HenrySwanson]

A haploid is an organism. And sperm has human dna (albeit not complete). I'm not saying that sperm is indistinguishable from a zygote. I'm saying that if you're going to call a zygote "a human" you're going to run into some rather arbitrary distinctions based on what the zygote literally is at the time and what other things literally are at the time.

Is it?

I get that there are haploid organisms, but are we calling the gametes of humans human organisms?

To the best of my understanding, the chief difference between the initial formation of a zygote and the sperm or egg that was used to create it, is the status of the DNA. Literally the state of a chain of nucleic acids is what we're hanging our hat on. The sperm was halfway there, and we couldn't be slightly bothered to preserve it. A white blood cell has the entire DNA within a cell and we don't care at all. And before you get on about the white blood cell not being "an organism", consider what the difference between a white blood cell and a zygote literally is. I'm out on a limb of my understanding of the science here, but I think the answer is not as big a difference as people assume - essentially active genes.

I think you've got to appreciate the difference between what can be called an organism and what can't, as then you can begin to answer what can be called "alive" in comparison to what is a "life". As you can see in that link, most biologists questioned stated that human life begins at fertilisation - not gametogenesis (creation of sperm/egg), and not some specific point in the development of the embryo/foetus.

Quick question:

Newborns sometimes need resuscitation after delivery, and may not have spontaneously taken their first breath. Is this action saving a life, or creating a life?

That's a great question, and not one I can easily answer. We allow a lot of different kinds of testing on mice, far more than human embryos. And mice are significantly more advanced organisms than a 14-day-old human embryo. So I think we're quite inconsistent on this. Mice can feel pain, for example, and we don't give two shakes.

If we're struggling to decide on what stage it becomes unethical to manipulate embryos, maybe we can see that there is a difference between one "clump of cells" and another?

 

[Danoff]

Is it?

I get that there are haploid organisms, but are we calling the gametes of humans human organisms?

They contain human DNA (albeit incomplete), and they are organisms. Perhaps you can elaborate on your own definitions or reasons for using a term. I'm generally fine with a lot of terms.

I think you've got to appreciate the difference between what can be called an organism and what can't, as then you can begin to answer what can be called "alive" in comparison to what is a "life". As you can see in that link, most biologists questioned stated that human life begins at fertilisation - not gametogenesis (creation of sperm/egg), and not some specific point in the development of the embryo/foetus.

"Human life" is exactly what I'm trying to get you to consider. You're looking for hard and fast definitions that have real profound meaning, and I'm suggesting that they don't have the kind of meaning or non-arbitrary nature that you're looking for.

Quick question:

Newborns sometimes need resuscitation after delivery, and may not have spontaneously taken their first breath. Is this action saving a life, or creating a life?

A fetus is "living". If you characterize ensuring that it starts breathing before it suffocates as "saving", which seems fair, I would definitely refer to it as "saving life". "A life" is a little harder to characterize, there might be any of a number of reasons to not refer to it as a singular life. To put a finer and somewhat ridiculous point on this, you might be trying to save the life of the bacteria within the fetus.

A sperm is alive. Is the act of a sperm fertilizing an egg creating a life? Saving a life? Destroying a life? Same goes for the egg but it's not as useful an example because it doesn't have a little tail that makes it move and seem really "alive".

If we're struggling to decide on what stage it becomes unethical to manipulate embryos, maybe we can see that there is a difference between one "clump of cells" and another?

Yea, the mouse is far "superior". It is way more complex, way more capable of understanding its circumstances and feeling pain. The mouse is far and away the more important entity when considering it and a 14-day-old human embryo. I can certainly differentiate it. If we should be protecting one of them, it's the mouse. We protect the other and I find that deeply inconsistent.

What "is" a zygote? It is a cell. The cell will not become a baby. If it is formed in a particular fashion and allowed to undergo its chemical process, the zygote will ultimately transform into a two-celled entity which I believe is still called a zygote (but I've seen conflict stances on this). What your "organism" actually literally does is split into something with two cells. That's the process. The same cell may continue to split if it continues to exist in the right environment and the right nucleic acids are active. If that ceases to be the case, the cell might express differently or simply stop dividing. That's all it is. The cell is not a baby. It is a biological entity which divides itself in a particular chemical environment. That's literally what it is.

 

[HenrySwanson]

They contain human DNA (albeit incomplete), and they are organisms. Perhaps you can elaborate on your own definitions or reasons for using a term. I'm generally fine with a lot of terms.

As in, what makes a thing an "individual".

Male humans (and some non-cis individuals) are organisms who can produce sperm - a specialised cell. The zygote is another human.

"Human life" is exactly what I'm trying to get you to consider. You're looking for hard and fast definitions that have real profound meaning, and I'm suggesting that they don't have the kind of meaning or non-arbitrary nature that you're looking for.


A fetus is "living". If you characterize ensuring that it starts breathing before it suffocates as "saving", which seems fair, I would definitely refer to it as "saving life". "A life" is a little harder to characterize, there might be any of a number of reasons to not refer to it as a singular life. To put a finer and somewhat ridiculous point on this, you might be trying to save the life of the bacteria within the fetus.

A sperm is alive. Is the act of a sperm fertilizing an egg creating a life? Saving a life? Destroying a life? Same goes for the egg but it's not as useful an example because it doesn't have a little tail that makes it move and seem really "alive".

That's what I'm trying to articulate - the bacteria, sperm, and foetus are all alive; the foetus and the bacteria are "a life" - one multicellular, one unicellular. When does that foetus become "a life"?

To emphasise the point, when a doctor examines a patient it's just that - a patient, not billions of patients. When there's a pregnant patient it can sometimes be useful to think of 2 (or more in multiple gestation pregnancies) patients (with the parent obviously taking precedence)

Yea, the mouse is far "superior". It is way more complex, way more capable of understanding its circumstances and feeling pain. The mouse is far and away the more important entity when considering it and a 14-day-old human embryo. I can certainly differentiate it. If we should be protecting one of them, it's the mouse. We protect the other and I find that deeply inconsistent.

What "is" a zygote? It is a cell. The cell will not become a baby. If it is formed in a particular fashion and allowed to undergo its chemical process, the zygote will ultimately transform into a two-celled entity which I believe is still called a zygote (but I've seen conflict stances on this). What your "organism" actually literally does is split into something with two cells. That's the process. The same cell may continue to split if it continues to exist in the right environment and the right nucleic acids are active. If that ceases to be the case, the cell might express differently or simply stop dividing. That's all it is. The cell is not a baby. It is a biological entity which divides itself in a particular chemical environment. That's literally what it is.

My fault again for not getting my point across. I was referring to a clump of, say, white blood cells compared with a clump of cells that is a whole embryo. When do we say, "hold on there", when dealing with humans (this point is more rhetorical since I've asked it before, but I'm curious what attributes we should look for)?

 

[Danoff]

As in, what makes a thing an "individual".

Very difficult question. You have bacteria, even with different DNA, living within you now. The two of you are inseparably linked.

Male humans (and some non-cis individuals) are organisms who can produce sperm - a specialised cell. The zygote is another human.

That's what I'm trying to articulate - the bacteria, sperm, and foetus are all alive; the foetus and the bacteria are "a life" - one multicellular, one unicellular.

Why? That's what I want you to articulate. Why, in a meaningful way, is it "another human"? What characteristic are you holding to?

My fault again for not getting my point across. I was referring to a clump of, say, white blood cells compared with a clump of cells that is a whole embryo. When do we say, "hold on there", when dealing with humans (this point is more rhetorical since I've asked it before, but I'm curious what attributes we should look for)?

Well if you're talking about the mouse, it is capable of feeling pain, that is a distinction. If you're looking for moral consideration, I would say the capacity for reciprocity is what you're looking for.

"Life" exists in so many forms. It is not magical or spiritual to me, it is the expression of a molecule that replicates itself. "A life" is not automatically worthy of consideration. "A life" is a biochemical process. We say "hold on there" fundamentally out of empathy. Sometimes we do this in a misguided sense, but that is ultimately where it comes from. "If it were me, how would this make me feel". It is a basic human social consideration that ultimately facilitates reciprocal behavior and helps to more effectively replicate that molecule.

The 14-day-rule is chosen to be before that point, before you could possibly empathize with the creature - because rather than talking about an entity that you can empathize with, we're talking about a clump of cells.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Very difficult question. You have bacteria, even with different DNA, living within you now. The two of you are inseparably linked.


Why? That's what I want you to articulate. Why, in a meaningful way, is it "another human"? What characteristic are you holding to?

I'm not a biologist so I can't really get too technical, but for me it's the same as why an embryo/foetus would be classed as offspring whereas sperm wouldn't.

I think as a society we "get it" whatever our experience with biology. For instance, we agree that bringing unwanted children into the world isn't very responsible yet we would, rightly or wrongly, judge someone who's had 17 abortions differently to someone who's told their partner to wear a condom 17 times. But really, what's the difference - they are both only causing cell death.

Well if you're talking about the mouse, it is capable of feeling pain, that is a distinction. If you're looking for moral consideration, I would say the capacity for reciprocity is what you're looking for.

"Life" exists in so many forms. It is not magical or spiritual to me, it is the expression of a molecule that replicates itself. "A life" is not automatically worthy of consideration. "A life" is a biochemical process. We say "hold on there" fundamentally out of empathy. Sometimes we do this in a misguided sense, but that is ultimately where it comes from. "If it were me, how would this make me feel". It is a basic human social consideration that ultimately facilitates reciprocal behavior and helps to more effectively replicate that molecule.

The 14-day-rule is chosen to be before that point, before you could possibly empathize with the creature - because rather than talking about an entity that you can empathize with, we're talking about a clump of cells.

But this is what I'm getting at. At what stage would you empathise with that clump of cells? For some "pro-lifers" it's at fertilisation, others at implantation, etc etc. We've talked about when they should have rights, but now we're seeing that the basis of laws governing their manipulation is probably going to have some arbitrariness to it.

You mention pain possibly being something to take into consideration. There are people who are born with an inability to feel pain. Would it be ethical to create embryos with the gene(s) responsible for pain knocked out so that when they develop into a foetus we'd be more comfortable experimenting on them (obviously we're talking decades into the future here)?

 

[Danoff]

I'm not a biologist so I can't really get too technical, but for me it's the same as why an embryo/foetus would be classed as offspring whereas sperm wouldn't.

I understand that.... why?

I think as a society we "get it" whatever our experience with biology. For instance, we agree that bringing unwanted children into the world isn't very responsible yet we would, rightly or wrongly, judge someone who's had 17 abortions differently to someone who's told their partner to wear a condom 17 times. But really, what's the difference - they are both only causing cell death.

I don't think that's "getting it". Someone on an IUD that prevents implantation might create a zygote every month of the year, and all of them stop dividing due to a lack of implantation. What exactly is the difference between this an a condom? And why do we care about a single cell with a particular expression of genes instead of some other cell with a different expression of genes?

But this is what I'm getting at. At what stage would you empathise with that clump of cells? For some "pro-lifers" it's at fertilisation, others at implantation, etc etc.

Only because they're imagining something else. You can't empathize with a cell any more than you can empathize with a rock.

You mention pain possibly being something to take into consideration. There are people who are born with an inability to feel pain. Would it be ethical to create embryos with the gene(s) responsible for pain knocked out so that when they develop into a foetus we'd be more comfortable experimenting on them (obviously we're talking decades into the future here)?

Well the mouse can feel pain and we don't care (socially). It is an example of a far more complex biological system than a single cell, but it's still not enough to get many of us worked up. So if we were to do what you say, it would still be deeply hypocritical where mice are concerned.

 

[Danoff]

Let's figure out which one to empathize with. One of these is a human, one is a mouse, one is a rabbit.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I understand that.... why?

I think I'm repeating myself, but it's the starting point, from which everything else divides from. Think of the zygote as the cake and the sperm and egg as ingredients. If you had exactly the same ingredients and created an identical cake (twins) you'd then have 2 lives.

I can't really think of any other point where you can say: that is the beginning of that human's life (we've seen how complicated birth could be if used).

I don't think that's "getting it". Someone on an IUD that prevents implantation might create a zygote every month of the year, and all of them stop dividing due to a lack of implantation. What exactly is the difference between this an a condom? And why do we care about a single cell with a particular expression of genes instead of some other cell with a different expression of genes?

I'm not so sure we should care, just recognise where the beginning of a life is, and from which point it can be called the demise of said life. As your IUD example shows there could be some general ignorance in the debate.

Well the mouse can feel pain and we don't care (socially). It is an example of a far more complex biological system than a single cell, but it's still not enough to get many of us worked up. So if we were to do what you say, it would still be deeply hypocritical where mice are concerned.

True, but what about the human? Should that meet ethical approval in your opinion?

Let's figure out which one to empathize with. One of these is a human, one is a mouse, one is a rabbit.

You can do that with even more developed embryos too. I think it's probably religion's influence for the reaction (is the more appropriate term sympathy/compassion??).

It's going to be interesting when the next milestone of neonatal medicine is breached and partial ectogenesis becomes a thing. If someone delivers at 21 weeks, and whatever is delivered is transferred to the NICU attached to a machine, what should be allowed to be done with it? A few weeks later in its gestation (e.g. 24 weeks), should the parent be allowed to terminate it if they wish (the answer I got on Twitter when I asked this surprised me)?

 

[Danoff]

I think I'm repeating myself, but it's the starting point, from which everything else divides from. Think of the zygote as the cake and the sperm and egg as ingredients. If you had exactly the same ingredients and created an identical cake (twins) you'd then have 2 lives.

I think you're not really understanding what I'm asking. You're saying it's "a human". My question is what, meaningfully, does that mean exactly? Because a single cell with human DNA does not strike me as fundamentally "a human". I get that if it is cultivated long enough in the right environment, and if it keeps developing, you might be able to track that starting cell (assuming it doesn't die, which probably it does) to a specific cell in a human some day. But why would you call that "a human". To me, it can only meaningfully be called "a cell", or a human zygote, or a human embryo. Does that cell become a baby? No. It becomes two cells (if things go right). Does it resemble a baby? No. Does it have any of the features or characteristics of a baby? Basically just one, DNA. But this is not meaningful because DNA can be shared with lots of other cells as well.

So what's the significance of this cell? Why are we calling this "a human"?

It is not the case that everything else divides from this starting point. When you have a 4-cell embryo, at a minimum, 1 of those cells did not divide from the first cell. It divided from a second cell. That first cell might divide many times along the way, but the cells it creates represent a very small percentage of an eventual baby. If you could identify the cell prior to spit and continue to identify a new cell and the original cell following the split (I don't know if this can be done but I'm guessing it can), then by the time you have an 8-cell embryo, half of the cells did not split from the original cell.

Start: Cell A
Split 1: Cell A, Cell B (from A)
Split 2: Cell A, Cell B( from A), Cell C (from A), Cell D (from B).
Split 3: Cell A, Cell B( from A,), Cell C( from A), Cell D (from B), Cell E (from D), Cell F (from C), Cell G (from B), Cell H (from A).

If you cannot identify the original cell and the new cell, you get this.

Start: Cell A
Split 1: Cell B (from A), Cell C (from A)
Split 2: Cell D (from B), Cell E (from B), Cell F (from C), Cell G (from C)

In this case, by the second split none of the cells come from the original cell.

Here's what (I'm fairly certain) you don't have.

Start: Cell A
Split 1: Cell A (from A), Cell A (from A)
Split 2: Cell A, Cell A, Cell A, Cell A

They're not each the same cell.

I can't really think of any other point to say - that is the beginning of that human's life.

If it stops dividing at the second split, do you still say that? Where is the human? Where was the "life"? Why are we calling it this? It is the beginning and end of a human cell.

True, but what about the human? Should that meet ethical approval in your opinion?

I might be more inclined to really think hard about and answer this question if you gave me a reason. So far in this discussion I'm not sure why my opinion on whether human fetuses and rats should be allowed to experience pain during experimentation is really important.

You can do that with even more developed embryos too. I think it's probably religion's influence for the reaction (is the more appropriate term sympathy/compassion??).

It entirely has to do with pretending that the cell is something that is worthy of sympathy/compassion, and not simply a cell or two.

It's going to be interesting when the next milestone of neonatal medicine is breached and partial ectogenesis becomes a thing. If someone delivers at 21 weeks, and whatever is delivered is transferred to the NICU attached to a machine, what should be allowed to be done with it? A few weeks later in its gestation (e.g. 24 weeks), should the parent be allowed to terminate it if they wish (the answer I got on Twitter when I asked this surprised me)?

Strictly morally speaking? Yes. Pragmatically? No.

 

[TexRex]

I think it's probably religion's influence for the reaction (is the more appropriate term sympathy/compassion??).

The appropriate term is control. Empathy, sympathy, compassion, morality...they all exist in the absence of religion. Religion exists as a means of control.