Very Late Term Abortion V. Early Term

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1303250198' post='2230325']
it's not complicated. but it's below the dignity of humans, as my first impression, to be one person, then two, then one like that.
course it's possible, sure.
[/quote]

I fail to see how it is objectionable or undignified.
There was one person. God created another. The second died.
This happens all the time, be it in an instant within the womb, or over a long period of time outside the womb.
The dignity of the two persons are never questioned when it occurs outside of the womb. Why within? Because the twin assimilates biological material which belonged to another person? That is no reason. I could donate my kidney to someone tommorow, or I could die and they take my heart. It certainly wouldn't call into question my personhood, or be considered undignified. Why would it when it occurs within the womb?

[Peter John]

[quote name='MagiDragon' timestamp='1303308180' post='2230499']
You missed my point, I meant to show you that there was 1 flatworm *before* there were 2. You wouldn't claim that the flatworm wasn't a flatworm because it *could* become more than 1. You would simply say "it is a flatworm." Similarly, even though twinning can occur, you wouldn't say "it may be several people." You would simply say "that's one human." It may become more than one human at some point, but that doesn't lessen its humanity *now.*

It is a human. It may become several humans, but it *is* one human.
[/quote]


I think the actual question on this is when was the second flatworm created. Did it exist as a second indentity at the same time as there was just one flatworm. Or better: which one is the first and which the second?

The comparison is not complete because the zygotes i twins divide before full physical development of the body, whereas planarians are divided with full development.

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='Peter John' timestamp='1303350410' post='2230726']
The comparison is not complete because the zygotes i twins divide before full physical development of the body, whereas planarians are divided with full development.
[/quote]

Whether or not the original physical material had with it two souls, is indeed an interesting question. I doubt, however, that there are two souls. We are body-persons, and to have two distinct souls in one body would, to me, be as much of a violation of human nature as two bodies with one soul. Even Siamese twins cannot be taken as a violation of this nature. They are each their own distinct entity, even on a physical level. They do not share memories or emotions or even identical motor skills. Nor, obviously, do they share souls. They are distinct body-persons. I do not think Man could have a body without a soul or a soul without a body, or share a soul or body (completely) with another. It would be to separate the body from the soul, to divide our nature in twain. It would violate, fundamentally, what it means to be Man. Could the second flatworm have existed as a second identity even though there was only one flatworm? No. Flatwors don't and cannot possibly have any identity outside of it separate from the body because they don't have souls. And there was only one body before the split.

As for the comparison being incomplete... Yes, it is. Can you please explain why that matters, though? Whether a body is fully developed or no, it still has a soul. Even people who are not fully developed (and there are many, from our three year olds to our handicapped unfortunates) are still undeniably people. Also, the body, though undeveloped, is still a distinct body. The distinctness of the entity--body and soul-- was what I believe MagiSragon was getting at, with development being a minor if not wholly irrelevant issue. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='ardillacid' timestamp='1303308820' post='2230500']
That is cool. Do you think you could source that, please?
[/quote]
Wow! Someone should reply to this!

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='ardillacid' timestamp='1303366255' post='2230805']
Wow! Someone should reply to this!
[/quote]


Maybe [url="http://http://www.pond-life.us/pond-life-flatworm-1.html"]HERE[/url]
Would be a good place to start.....

[dairygirl4u2c]

i think most if not all science books define the earliest conceived egg to be an organism. i'm not sure that's uniform, but i haven't looked that hard, and have no reason to think otherwise.
it does seem more like one would say it's a person, if it's an organism. but it might seem even whether it's an organism might be up for debate, at least as fqar as techincal definitions go. one could say an organism is something that is able to live independant of a host.
im not sure if there's organisms that would be dependant on others like the earliest conceived egg is.
although even if it's an organism, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a 'person'

Edited April 24, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[Peter John]

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1303365847' post='2230804']
Whether or not the original physical material had with it two souls, is indeed an interesting question. I doubt, however, that there are two souls. We are body-persons, and to have two distinct souls in one body would, to me, be as much of a violation of human nature as two bodies with one soul. Even Siamese twins cannot be taken as a violation of this nature. They are each their own distinct entity, even on a physical level. They do not share memories or emotions or even identical motor skills. Nor, obviously, do they share souls. They are distinct body-persons. I do not think Man could have a body without a soul or a soul without a body, or share a soul or body (completely) with another. It would be to separate the body from the soul, to divide our nature in twain. It would violate, fundamentally, what it means to be Man. Could the second flatworm have existed as a second identity even though there was only one flatworm? No. Flatwors don't and cannot possibly have any identity outside of it separate from the body because they don't have souls. And there was only one body before the split.

As for the comparison being incomplete... Yes, it is. Can you please explain why that matters, though? Whether a body is fully developed or no, it still has a soul. Even people who are not fully developed (and there are many, from our three year olds to our handicapped unfortunates) are still undeniably people. Also, the body, though undeveloped, is still a distinct body. The distinctness of the entity--body and soul-- was what I believe MagiSragon was getting at, with development being a minor if not wholly irrelevant issue. Please correct me if I am wrong.
[/quote]
If we are merely body persons, then our entire consciusness depends on the development of ur brain. This would mean that a person developed only to the point of a single cell organism, or even a multiple cell organism, would not have any consciousness, much less a personality. This would make a person less than a flatworm at that stage of development. If a person does not have consciousness and personality at that stage of development, it is really only a prospective person, and the abortion debate is moot until some recognizably human developmental phase is reached.

If we consider a zygote a full human being, we must consider the consciousness independent of the physical apparatus though which it manifests. Does that reasoning make sense?

I will note that my personal reason for believing an unborn child's personality intact at conception is not based on reasoning, but has esoteric basis.

Edited April 25, 2011 by Peter John

[Socrates]

[quote name='Peter John' timestamp='1303691858' post='2231980']
If we are merely body persons, then our entire consciusness depends on the development of ur brain. This would mean that a person developed only to the point of a single cell organism, or even a multiple cell organism, would not have any consciousness, much less a personality. This would make a person less than a flatworm at that stage of development. If a person does not have consciousness and personality at that stage of development, it is really only a prospective person, and the abortion debate is moot until some recognizably human developmental phase is reached.

If we consider a zygote a full human being, we must consider the consciousness independent of the physical apparatus though which it manifests. Does that reasoning make sense?

I will note that my personal reason for believing an unborn child's personality intact at conception is not based on reasoning, but has esoteric basis.
[/quote]
The degree of consciousness should not have any bearing on the human right to life.

A person in deep sleep or knocked out on drugs may not be conscious, but it is not morally acceptable to kill him in such a state.

The whole "consciousness as basis for right to life" is in Peter Singer territory, who argues for legalization of killing of infants (already born) and the severely mentally retarded.

(And PJ, I know you're know arguing that line; I'm just elaborating.)

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='Peter John' timestamp='1303691858' post='2231980']
If we are merely body persons,
[/quote]

I was using the term "body-person" in the way it was used by Pope John Paul II:
Meaning, a being consisting inseparably of body and of soul. We do not exist independent of soul, or independent of body, nor is one more evil/less than the other.
I cannot recall ever having mentioned consciousness or personality, nor does it have any bearing on my argument, for an independent body can exist separately from it.

Edited April 26, 2011 by Tally Marx

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1303658935' post='2231804']
i think most if not all science books define the earliest conceived egg to be an organism. i'm not sure that's uniform, but i haven't looked that hard, and have no reason to think otherwise.
it does seem more like one would say it's a person, if it's an organism. but it might seem even whether it's an organism might be up for debate, at least as fqar as techincal definitions go. one could say an organism is something that is able to live independant of a host.
im not sure if there's organisms that would be dependant on others like the earliest conceived egg is.
although even if it's an organism, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a 'person'
[/quote]


Yes, the embryo is uniformly considered an organism-a living being unto itself. It's needing a 'host' doesn't have any bearing on whether or not it is a being unto itself, else parasites, bacteria, and viruses couldn't be considered organisms, either (and they are).

"Person" is a sketchy term. It isn't scientifically or socially defined. It can (and often does) mean whatever a certain individual wishes it to. You would have to define it and then defend your definition.

[dairygirl4u2c]

'parasites, bacteria, and viruses'
as far as i know, they can all live independent of the host for awhile. only insofar as they need the host to survive, eat off, are they dependent, but that's no different than any organism needing other organisms to live. not sure if there's any that are strictly dependent on the host.
but yes that's a good phrase to make your point. 'a being unto itself',,, its dependent/independant status is at least very close if not fully encapsulated with this phrase.

[Peter John]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1303658935' post='2231804']
i think most if not all science books define the earliest conceived egg to be an organism. i'm not sure that's uniform, but i haven't looked that hard, and have no reason to think otherwise.
it does seem more like one would say it's a person, if it's an organism. but it might seem even whether it's an organism might be up for debate, at least as fqar as techincal definitions go. one could say an organism is something that is able to live independant of a host.
im not sure if there's organisms that would be dependant on others like the earliest conceived egg is.
although even if it's an organism, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a 'person'
[/quote]
By that reasoning any parasite is not an organism. Since tapeworms and leeches are definitely organisms. In fact human zygotes can live and grow in artificial environments. That is where frozen embryos in fertility labs come from. They just cannot survive without embedding into the wall of a uterus. The parasite argument is one common to abortion supporters -- that at the earliest phases of development the life is only a parasite.

[Peter John]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1303756467' post='2232582']
The degree of consciousness should not have any bearing on the human right to life.

A person in deep sleep or knocked out on drugs may not be conscious, but it is not morally acceptable to kill him in such a state.

The whole "consciousness as basis for right to life" is in Peter Singer territory, who argues for legalization of killing of infants (already born) and the severely mentally retarded.

(And PJ, I know you're know arguing that line; I'm just elaborating.)
[/quote]


Consciousness does not mean the state of being awake or aware, in this application. Being awake and visibly aware is a manifestation of consciousness. The lack of these manifestations does eliminate that one might have self-awareness independent of any outward manifestation. It sounds like Peter Singer's argument involves consciousness as it can be outwardly perceived. What I argue is that the consciousness == the self-awareness -- has to be there whether or not there are behavioral or otherwise manifestation. In fact, I woulkd argue that when growth or life is present we have to assume consciousness(personality, etc.) regardless of manifestation.physical or neurological faults can render it so that it cannot be manifest.

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1303829612' post='2233361']
'parasites, bacteria, and viruses'
as far as i know, they can all live independent of the host for awhile. only insofar as they need the host to survive, eat off, are they dependent, but that's no different than any organism needing other organisms to live. not sure if there's any that are strictly dependent on the host.
but yes that's a good phrase to make your point. 'a being unto itself',,, its dependent/independant status is at least very close if not fully encapsulated with this phrase.
[/quote]


Organism- An individual form of life that is capable of growing, metabolizing nutrients, and usually reproducing*. Organisms can be unicellular or multicellular. They are scientifically divided into five different groups (called kingdoms) that include prokaryotes, protists, fungi, plants, and animals, and that are further subdivided based on common ancestry and homology of anatomic and molecular structures. (From the The American Heritage Science Dictionary)

*My Note: "Usually" means that organisms like it can as a general rule reproduce to make more of the same organism. The embryo fits the bill for all three requirements... growing & metabolixing nutrients independently (without stimuli) from the mother, and being able to reproduce as a general rule, especially without the mother.
-----------------------------------------------------
Viability (the ability to live without support) has no bearing on whether or not a body is an organism. A sperm can live without support for a period of time, but it is not an organism.
And at any rate, if parasites can live independently of their hosts for only as long as it takes them to starve, and embryos/fetuses can live independently of their mother only as long as it takes to suffocate, there isn't that much of a difference. Also note that a human on life support (needing food and oxygen from an outside force- a machine) isn't that different from an embryo/fetus (needing food and oxygen from an outside force- the mother). Yet, you wouldn't argue that a person on life support isn't an organism.

[dairygirl4u2c]

'an individual form'

ya shoulda found a better definition than that, cause that one require it be 'independent'
that's the whole debate.
i realize it could be argued to be independent, but then again, it could be argued as not independent.