- 2,480
- United Kingdom
Ah got it.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 think you answer the question here:
They are all humans, just at different stages of development:To me, it can only meaningfully be called "a cell", or a human zygote, or a human embryo. Does that cell become a baby?
A human zygote
A human foetus
A human baby
A human adolescent
etc
Where there is a difference is who we define as a person, which is more of a philosophical question, and how much value we put on each thing. While it's not really relevant in the abortion debate with regards to a pregnant person's choice, I think definitions will play a key role when discussing the ethics around partial ectogenesis and the development of embryos past the current limit.
My fault for the poor wording.DanoffIt 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.
Every cell can trace its lineage to Cell A in your example. If we knocked out Cell G you get rid of the daughter cells of that cell, but maybe don't kill the organism; knockout Cell A and bye-bye human.
It goes to seeing what we are fine to experiment on.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.
Thanks for answering, as I find it a hard question.Strictly morally speaking? Yes. Pragmatically? No.
How should the law reflect this? Morally speaking, what makes it different from a 24 week gestation infant that is being ventilated in the NICU, as I presume you would find it morally wrong to terminate their life. Is it only the technology used that accounts for the difference, or is it because it hasn't taken its first breath?
I get that the majority of people will have that as a reason, but what about the few who do have genuine sympathy/whatever? Is it always misguided....The appropriate term is control. Empathy, sympathy, compassion, morality...they all exist in the absence of religion. Religion exists as a means of control.
Last edited: