This is how this debate always goes, and people prolong the agony by failing to use precise language.

Vitus will continue to win the debate so long as people don't differentiate between Person and Human because you can't argue that anything made of human DNA isn't Human. That's not to say that everything Human is Person in the meaningful way that everyone understands the term.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

As noted, I am completely fine with defining person differently- that is a matter of philosophy. I think I was pretty careful in saying that you don't need to accept that the zygote is a person or has rights or has moral worth or value, precisely because those are issues of philosophy and can't be addressed by science one way or the other.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

You've been consistent on that point for some time, as I recall. It's the other side who seem to gum it up needlessly with careless language and assertions.

I agree with that position, by the way. But, I think we can use the scientific process to add meat to those philosophical bones, such as development--or loss--of the structural capacity for consciousness. This is an issue we deal with almost daily here in the ICU, on the back end of life. A person who has sustained a catastrophic brain injury, with a negative brain flow study result, confirmed absence of brain stem reflexes, and confirmed loss of spontaneous respiratory drive meets criteria for brain death, regardless of their external physical appearance or the numbers on the monitors. They've lost the capacity for consciousness or any of the higher brain functions that are essential and unique to Personhood. They are comprised of human tissue, but, in my philosophical view based on reliable objective scientific measure, they've lost their Personhood and, not coincidentally, they no longer hold claim to the rights that a Person possesses. We have no moral or ethical, or legal, obligation to continue providing "life" support to humans in that state of existence; in cases when the family is unable to come to grips with the reality of their former loved one's death, we initiate the futility of care process and take the first legal steps to absolve ourselves of that responsibility.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Now 550 posts in, you skipped answering 7 separate questions about suporting/opposing in-vitro fertilization.

Basically, do you support the common IVF technique of fertilizing multiple eggs, in order to allow a couple to bear a child? Many embryos may be discarded, others may be frozen with virtually zero chance of gestation. It isn't that difficult a question to answer....

whos making careless assertions here?

"live begins at conception" or a "zygote is a human" is an assertion. vitus has repeatedly been asked to back it up and refuses to. he goes even further to say that its uncontested in science. therefore it can be easily dismissed.

i agree that there is imprecise language here. at times ive tried to clarify by asking if "human" was being used as as adjective or noun and was ridiculed for it. thats not to imply that I've been perfect in this debate.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

he is apparently continuing to ignore them because it wasnt asked an 8th time

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

But, I think we can use the scientific process to add meat to those philosophical bones, such as development--or loss--of the structural capacity for consciousness.

That, to me, is a more interesting conversation. I can see the basis for the argument. At the same time, I myself don't think it holds up altogether.

Do you think there's a difference between a human who has not yet but can reasonably be expected to develop that structural capacity for consciousness, and one who has lost it permanently? It seems to me to be a significant difference. It might be the case that a embryo does not have the physical structure for consciousness. But you can reasonably expect that if you don't take preventive action, it will develop that structure, and eventually gain consciousness. So maybe it's not yet a person, but it will become a person if you don't kill it. Is that equivalent to letting a human who has permanently lost his personhood die?

Then there is the difficulty in identifying what physical structure is sufficient to support consciousness, and personhood. People often settle on brain wave activity, and reasonably enough. But that's more of a guess and a hedge than a confident position on when a human is capable of consciousness.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Basically, do you support the common IVF technique of fertilizing multiple eggs, in order to allow a couple to bear a child? Many embryos may be discarded, others may be frozen with virtually zero chance of gestation. It isn't that difficult a question to answer....

Mea maxima culpa. I forgot what the question was.

No, I don't support that technique, and I think that was probably evident from my exchange with Blep very early on in the thread.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I had just typed in my last edit that I found this to be a perplexing question, but deleted it. Yes, there is, but the degree of difference, I'm not sure is all that meaningful. Most products of conception spontaneously abort before developing into a fetus. Zygote destruction is the rule in nature, not the exception. We had multiple embryos fertilize then degrade to the point where transfer for implantation would be pointless, then several high grade embryos that failed to implant, and spontaneously aborted. Finally one, out of ten, survived. I don't lose sleep over those that didn't. We didn't lose a child in those instances. We had unsuccessful pregnancies.

As to persons who've lost the capacity for the meaningful functions of Personhood, I don't have the slightest reservation about initiating futility paperwork when I'm convinced via empirical evidence that they've lost the structural capacity to form a thought or experience anything whatsoever. They were tortured before death, and we're simply discontinuing the abuse of their warm corpse.

So, as to the difference in how I feel about the two, I feel relief in the latter, and mostly indifference in the former. And those feelings are worlds away from my feelings on killing fetuses with the capacity for functions that define Personhood.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

My question was intended more in regard to abortion than to IVF. I understand similar questions potentially apply.

I don't find the issue of spontaneous abortion to be especially persuasive. Just because a human being has a high (random) likelihood of dying naturally or from some other cause does not make it acceptable to kill it. Babies born in high infant mortality areas are not less valuable.

On the other hand, if you have embryos that are already degraded and basically not viable, I wouldn't say you're obligated to implant those.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Of course they're not. But we're not talking about Human Beings, in my view, in this instance.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

To be clear, I do feel differently about intentionally aborting a pre-personhood embryo than I do about losing one incidentally, even if I intentionally created it. But there are degrees of moral responsibility that I would feel on the continuum from a morning after pill and aborting a pre-personhood fetus. Taking a morning after pill would barely register a blip above using a condom, and aborting a pre-personhood capacity fetus would register just a tick below aborting a second trimester fetus, which I would have a very difficult time with.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

In using consciousness as a definition of personhood there is a third case (in addition to undeveloped consciousness and permanently lost consciousness): temporarily lost consciousness as in case of a comatose person (as result of injury, disease, or medically induced). I think that creates problems for those who use consciousness as definition of personhood and argue that abortion is moral.

Or maybe I'm wrong in that regard and I would appreciate any comments sphere has with regard to brain function and consciousness in comatose persons.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

comatose is not syonymous with braindead which was the criteria sphere suggested.

the difference would be your computer is locked up/frozen vs your motherboard is fried. you can recover from the first, it may lead to catastrophic failure, it may not. but the latter is not coming back. no matter how many times you ctrl alt delete.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

People do not turn old. Old is an adjective describing a person (or thing). Use of the term is relative. As Deana Carter sang, "I can still remember when 30 was old." Children I coach consider me (50s) old yet my parents in their 80s consider me young. Fast, strong, smart, nice are other adjectives used to describe people in relative unscientific terms.

People do age and of that there is no scientific dispute or doubt. There are many scientific criteria to measure the effects of aging. Decrease in testosterone and other hormones. (Perhaps have not yet witnessed the effects of, e.g., menopause.) Loss of muscle tissue, decrease in reflexes, etc., all can be, and are, regularly measured in scientific manner by doctors who treat people as they age.

I'm tempted to say I go by my min/mile running pace to gauge my aging, but someone would say take it to the other forum.

I suspect by your confusion about aging that you have not yet started to slow down much. If so, good for you and enjoy it while it lasts.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Agreed.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

But there are degrees of moral responsibility

I agree that there are degrees of moral responsibility. I think I assign a higher moral import on the consequences of IVF and the morning after pill than you do, but agree that they differ in aspects from other types of abortion, and that can have an impact on the degree of moral responsibility involved.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

not much, but it takes me longer to recover. im not in my 30s anymore but i can still run fast. well, fast for someone who isnt a pure runner.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

In using consciousness as a definition of personhood there is a third case (in addition to undeveloped consciousness and permanently lost consciousness): temporarily lost consciousness as in case of a comatose person (as result of injury, disease, or medically induced). I think that creates problems for those who use consciousness as definition of personhood and argue that abortion is moral.

I agree, it can present a problem if they use consciousness as the definition or defining criteria of personhood. I don't think that applies to sphere's formulation, though, as he was talking about a physical structure capable of sustaining consciousness, and that remains intact during a coma or sleep or other unconscious states, generally.

The problem I see with it is that I don't think we really know when the brain is developed to a point "capable of sustaining consciousness." Fortunately, most people who hold this view seem to be fairly generous in assigning personhood at a pretty early stage of brain development. But I don't know if their criteria really supports that. I'm happy that they err on the side of caution, though.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

The formulation of a "physical structure capable of sustaining consciousness" is just a dodge to try to avoid the problem. The problem does not go away.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

You're trying to squeeze blood from a turnip. You cannot take away something that does not currently exist. its not a current problem.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

A dodge by whom, and to what end? I'm not sure why you'd assert that. There is literally no way of identifying the precise moment when meaningful consciousness develops; and when it does, it's probably rudimentary at first and develops greater complexity and meaningfulness to the individual with time. We know that certain higher brain functions are required for conscious thought, and that higher brain functions require a developed and functional nervous system. As vitus referenced, we simply don't know when that is, but we do know that as the CNS becomes more complex, the likelihood of conscious thought increases. It's entirely reasonable, then, to reference structural form and thus presumed function in forming a basis for our opinions about when Personhood, as defined centrally on consciousness and self awareness, occurs--keeping in mind, of course, that these are ultimately informed opinions.

To answer a previous question: once a human being acquires Personhood, they retain the right to that state of being until it can no longer be sustained or restored, as is the case with irreversible brain death. Prior to that, in my philosophical view, based on the above reasoning, they do not have a right to Personhood, as they currently do not meet that criteria. The argument that human tissue with the potential to develop it should be protected in order to do so is compelling, though. I just happen to believe that the right of the host Person to determine whether that happens or not, in the stages prior to the development of Personhood, trumps the case for it.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

I understand your position. As you know, I take the alternate view that a human organism who hasn't yet developed personhood is just as valuable, and should be viewed and protected as such.

(As a related aside, I recently read that there's a part of the human brain that seems unique to us, related to the ability to plan for the future. It would be ironic if people who have developed that part of the brain don't exercise it on behalf of the unborn, who then never get to develop it themselves.)

Some people were talking about carrots and watermelons and seeds and stuff. Hypothetically, lets say that apples were tremendously valuable. Apple trees would clearly be valuable, as well, for obvious reasons. Once a tree had gone barren, it would no longer be of special worth, though, and we might decide to just let it die, or we might chop it down for firewood, or whatever.

But what about the tree that isn't mature enough to bear fruit? Would we say it isn't of high importance because it hasn't gotten to the point where it's giving us actual apples, so it doesn't deserve consideration as an apple tree yet? Of course we wouldn't. We would think that for a second. We'd protect that tree and nourish is to the best of our ability so that it could mature and one day produce apples.

That, I think, is how we ought to look at human organisms who have not yet achieved personhood.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

That's a good analogy. But it leaves out the reasons why we might, for the health of the mature trees, prune out saplings that could be detrimental to the parent tree's long term health, and that ultimately there is no room in the analogy for a discussion of reproductive rights of the fruit bearing trees.

We may value apples for their inherent worth, but women aren't a grove of trees from which to shake loose valuable crops.

I keep coming back to the issue of immigration, rights of citizenship, and your position on those vis a vis reproductive rights. Immigrants, legal and illegal, are human beings--Persons--like you and I. We enjoy certain legal rights conveyed by our United States citizenship, and we believe those rights to be essential and inviolate. You don't, I don't think, believe those rights and benefits should be conveyed on those non-citizens, even though they're Persons like us, because they haven't passed the threshold of citizenship. This is the closest analogy I can arrive at, in terms of passing the threshold of Personhood, legal rights, and moral responsibility. You're not wrong that it would be best to protect those potential Persons, but I maintain that the legal right of the host Person to decide it's fate--as it is inextricably intertwined with their own--supersedes that impetus when that form of human life has not met the criteria for Personhood.

I had a patient die last week, within 12 hours after a scheduled c-section. She developed an amniotic fluid embolus, which triggered disseminated intravascular coagulopathy, and after hours of ultimately futile intensive intervention, thirty plus units of blood, and two trips to the OR, she went to the basement morgue rather than home with her husband and newborn, and two young children. She was otherwise healthy, no major medical problems other than obesity. I think we need to keep in mind the very real risk of threats to life and health of the mother when talking about pregnancy and childbirth. It's easy to forget about these risks in the modern era, in a prosperous nation. It's not an academic point.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

  


There are two assumptions often made.

1) Every pregnant woman got that way because they had consensual sex and chose not to use contraception

2) No pregnancy will kill you

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485