Very Late Term Abortion V. Early Term

[Socrates]

[quote name='Peter John' timestamp='1303873757' post='2233787']
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.
[/quote]
Perhaps. I would argue that the consciousness exists in potentiality, and that the right to life does not depend upon consciousness or self-awareness as Singer & co. assert.

They, being atheists who deny the existence of an immortal soul, would not buy that a young embryo or fetus has consciousness or self-awareness, and say it has no more rights than a flatworm.

Once we make the right to life dependent upon mental or physical abilities or attributes, rather than the simple fact of being a living human being, we're down a slippery slope.

[Peter John]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1303943138' post='2234017']
Perhaps. I would argue that the consciousness exists in potentiality, and that the right to life does not depend upon consciousness or self-awareness as Singer & co. assert.

They, being atheists who deny the existence of an immortal soul, would not buy that a young embryo or fetus has consciousness or self-awareness, and say it has no more rights than a flatworm.

Once we make the right to life dependent upon mental or physical abilities or attributes, rather than the simple fact of being a living human being, we're down a slippery slope.
[/quote]


I completely agree. That is the point in separating consciousness from a physical matrix in secular terms as well as religious terms. Can a human being be a human being without an individual identity? Without consciousness, we are nothing at all. If the existence of consciousness depends on organic structure, then the degree of our humanity depends on how well the organs of consciousness function. By affirming that a single-celled person is still a human being, we inherently acknowledge that it must have a consciousness apart from its physical ability to express that consciousness. I might point out the biblical definition that the life of the flesh is in the blood, and that a one celled person, and even an eight celled person, does not have blood. Therefore, the definition of human life has to be something other than organic existence, or an extremely early abortion would not qualify as taking a life.

It is not a question of whether consciousnes determines right to life (as animals also have consciousness) or whether humanity determines it. One condition is inherent with the other. A one-celled person is a human either by having human DNA, in which case the DNA is sacred, or by having human consciousness -- which may well be what we refer to religiously as a soul. Since the DNA itself is not sacred, it must be the human consciousness associated with physical existence that is sacred, and the bond between this consciousness and the organism the Lord uses to generate it. This is equally sacred for everyone, regardless of how well their body permits expression. It may be that growth is all they can express -- dividing into multiple cells. It may be that they can express development of an entire full-grown body, but one with imperfections inhibiting the full expression of consciousness.

This is a counter to the backward view of the origin of consciousness as the neural structure. Instead, the neural structure physically defines a soul's capacity for expressing its consciousness in a mortal state. I am of the opinion that the resurrection wioll be a resurrection to a perfected state, which means these physical restrictions on expression of consciousness will be gone. Those with autism, for example, will likely manifest a more expressive personality in the resurrection than they manifest in this life.

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1303942003' post='2234009']
'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.
[/quote]


You don't understand. It says "individual". This is not the same as "independent".
There is no doubt the unborn is an individual. It has it's own unique DNA. Dependent it is. A non-individual? Not at all.

[MithLuin]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1302561256' post='2227601']
folks are welcome to prove how it's the same from conception. is a snowball a snowman? is a lego a lego man? the points aren't to say that the earliest cells are not human but to ask what distinguishes them such that they are human life, and not just cells. if there's ambiguity about how many snowballs make a snow man, or legos a lego man, it could be argued as analogous that it's ambiguous about how many cells must exist to constitute a human. yes, you can probably find all kinds of ways to reduce regular folks less and less from whole, and it mighte even be gray. but it being gray doesn't mean rash statements are made just to put the gray under a rug.
is there something special about the cells that distinguish it? i suppose there must be some chemicals going on, that are not present in normal cells, directing them to form a person? i dont know. even this basic info is never established in all the debates i've seen on the issue. but, in any case, what are the indicators that distinguish them early on?
how is the lego and snowball example disanalogous?
[/quote]

Against my better judgement, I am going to attempt to answer this. I apologize if I am just wasting your time.

You are...a human being. You are made of cells. You can afford to lose some of those cells and still be a human being - through something harmless like shedding some dead skin, to something minor like bleeding through a paper cut, or something major, like having a leg amputated or kidney/spleen removed. The parts of you that are lost soon die, and you live on, and so everyone recognizes parts and whole and what is really [i]you[/i] and all of that. If someone were to remove a cancerous tumor, and keep it growing, while you unfortunately died, we'd still recognize that the tumor was removed from [i]you[/i]. 'Last cell living' is not what makes you who you are.

So, where did all your cells come from? Human development can be traced back so that all of your cells came from other cells that belonged to you. Your blood cells came from your bone marrow, etc. And if we trace this path of development back far enough, we'll get to baby!you, and fetus!you, and embryo!you...just a little clump of cells who was...you. Eventually, we will get back to one single cell, the zygote, which is [i]you[/i]. And where did the zygote come from?

The union of egg and sperm at fertilization formed the new human being. The egg was the mother's cell. The sperm was the father's cell. Neither was [i]you[/i]. Neither contained all of your DNA. Neither (on their own) could become you. The fertilization of the gametes is what produces the offspring. [That's actually generally true across the board in biology, and hardly limited to human beings.]


The reason your analogy does not hold up is that adding more cells does not make a human being the way adding more snowballs makes a snowman. We human beings are very particular about what type of cells go where. You can't just scoop parts of us out at random and expect us to keep going strong! It's not the number of cells or even the fact that they are growing that makes them a human being. And yes, a zygote is not just some random cell. I can't take a cheek swab from you and grow another human being from that starting point. Well, maybe I could try. The way cloning works is I would extract a nucleus from one of those cells and inject it into an egg cell and then try to grow the baby. But human cloning is illegal [i]and[/i] immoral, so you really shouldn't do that! If you don't understand what makes the 'new' cell different from all of your cells, it's important to think about what stem cells are. They still have the plasticity to differentiate as needed. Normal adult cells don't have that ability, usually.

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='ardillacid' timestamp='1303308820' post='2230500']
That is cool. Do you think you could source that, please?
[/quote]

My apologies for failing to come back to this thread until nearly a month later, but it's worth noting that flatworms aren't unique in this ability to generate multiple individuals after being cut. Other examples include anemones, sponges (I'll admit that you could debate whether a sponge is an individual, though . . . you can cut one into a ton of different pieces and then reassemble the pieces into one individual . . .) and starfish. I didn't feel any need to cite this because all of those are well known to grow back.

So in essense, my reply is [url="http://lmgtfy.com/?q=flatworms+regrow+after+being+cut"]this.[/url]

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='MagiDragon' timestamp='1305216435' post='2240493']

So in essense, my reply is [url="http://lmgtfy.com/?q=flatworms+regrow+after+being+cut"]this.[/url]
[/quote]
Love that site.

[Groo the Wanderer]

[img]http://www.lolsaints.com/sites/lolsaints.com/files/imagecache/main-saint-image/saint-story-images/orly.jpg[/img]