Abortion...what should be the line?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
By your logic an elephant is "more alive" than a human being.

A deceased corpse does not have more living tissue, in percentage terms, than a zygote. Further, the zygote is a living organism, its living cell is integrated fully (quite trivially, in this case) into the organism. That's not true of the disparate and uncoordinated living tissue of a recently deceased corpse.

LH: A deceased corpse does not have more living tissue, in percentage terms, than a zygote.

LMAO!!!! Is percentage of living tissue some biological measure of an organism being alive?

All humans eventually become corpses so being a corpse is a stage of human development. And recently deceased corpses have more living tissue than zygotes. Therefore, a corpse should have the same rights as a zygote under the "logic" presented by KellyJay.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
What is the difference between 'latency' (or 'potential'[1]) and 'capacity'?

LH

[1] I'm distinguishing this from 'potency' which is a metaphysics term.

There is a clear distinction: possessing the capacity for [] entails that [] can be exercised; possessing the latency, or potentiality, for [] does not. That is, the possession of capacity entails that the faculty or ability is present; the possession of latency or potentiality does not.*

The same sort of distinction holds between 'in act' and 'in potency'.

-----------
*Actually, under my interpretation, in this context the possession of latency or potentiality entails that the faculty or ability is not present -- as in not yet actual.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Implicit in your argument is a circular argument. You're equating, without providing reasons, the following two definitions of 'person':

(P1) a being with certain capacities (rationality, self-consciousness, suffering etc.)

(P2) a being that qualifies for rights

You need to either start from P1 and show why P2 is necessary and sufficient - or ...[text shortened]...
EDIT: I'm taking up the exact difference between 'capacity' and 'potential' elsewhere.

😵

You do understand the nature of this discussion as a normative assessment, don't you?

To charge that I don't have reasons for my view is something else, but I have reasons.

Originally posted by no1marauder
LH: A deceased corpse does not have more living tissue, in percentage terms, than a zygote.

LMAO!!!! Is percentage of living tissue some biological measure of an organism being alive?

All humans eventually become corpses so being a corpse is a stage of human development. And recently deceased corpses have more living tissue than zygotes. ...[text shortened]... ore, a corpse should have the same rights as a zygote under the "logic" presented by KellyJay.

Is number of living cells any biological measure of an organism being alive? If so, why do you not consider an elephant "more alive" than a human being? You didn't answer the question. Does that mean elephants should have more rights than humans? Perhaps you realised too late the absurdity of your comment.

That all humans eventually become corpses does not make a corpse a stage in human development. That's quite simply because the human being (i.e. the organism) ceases to be at death and any talk of development after that is meaningless.

Originally posted by LemonJello
😵

You do understand the nature of this discussion as a normative assessment, don't you?

To charge that I don't have reasons for my view is something else, but I have reasons.

I don't charge that you don't have reasons -- merely that you haven't presented them yet continue to switch between P1 and P2 freely.

And what do you mean by "normative assessment"?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Is number of living cells any biological measure of an organism being alive? If so, why do you not consider an elephant "more alive" than a human being? You didn't answer the question. Does that mean elephants should have more rights than humans? Perhaps you realised too late the absurdity of your comment.

That all humans eventually become corpses . the organism) ceases to be at death and any talk of development after that is meaningless.

You're being idiotic and reading the comment out of all context (a speciality of yours). KellyJay was claiming (as you do) that a zygote is a human being simply because it has living human tissue. But so does a corpse. What makes a human a corpse is given on page 10 in the Definition of Death Act; it is noteworthy that a zygote doesn't have any ability to meet those requirements i.e. it can't die as a human being. And if it can't meet the requirements necessary to die as a human being, how can it possibly be a living one?

EDIT: And most never do.

Originally posted by LemonJello
There is a clear distinction: possessing the capacity for [] entails that [] can be exercised; possessing the latency, or potentiality, for [] does not. That is, the possession of capacity entails that the faculty or ability is present; the possession of latency or potentiality does not.*

The same sort of distinction holds between 'in act' and 'in pot ...[text shortened]... entiality entails that the faculty or ability is not present -- as in not yet actual.

'Act' and 'potency' refer to states of the being itself, rather than properties or powers - but that's a different question.

I'm not so certain the distinction is as clear as you say. My neurobiology is somewhat rusty but, IIRC, the operation of the human nervous system occurs through "firing" of neurons across synapses (junction points). The "firing" is of a chemical nature; i.e. chemicals (neurotransmitters? As I said, rusty) need to produced for the operation to take place. In physical terms, this means that there is a material difference -- actual molecules have been created that weren't there before. There is a material difference between the brain of a person exercising an ability and one who is not.

Indeed, it's not a stretch of the imagination to think of possible living beings whose exercise of powers involves the creation of new brain cells that die away when not needed. Would such organisms possess the capacities you mention when they are not exercising them?

If you push back the definition of capacity to include the production of those chemical transmitters (or extra brain cells) then why not back to the production of the cells that produce the transmitters themselves?

Further, what does "can be exercised" mean? If I've just fallen into bed from a 48-hour shift, you'll have to do something relatively extreme to get me to display my capacity for rationality 🙂. Another example would be the person in a coma with a physically undamaged brain. Or does it mean "can be exercised under suitable conditions"? Why do those suitable conditions not extend to the development of the brain itself?

I think the apparent distinction is not all that clear. Personally, I hold it to be illusory.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're being idiotic and reading the comment out of all context (a speciality of yours). KellyJay was claiming (as you do) that a zygote is a human being simply because it has living human tissue. But so does a corpse. What makes a human a corpse is given on page 10 in the Definition of Death Act; it is noteworthy that a zygote doesn't have any ability ...[text shortened]... ry to die as a human being, how can it possibly be a living one?

EDIT: And most never do.

I had a feeling you would drag in the law sooner or later into a philosophical discussion. I don't know about you, but I think philosophy should drive the law, not the other way around.

A zygote is a human being simply because it is a human organism.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I had a feeling you would drag in the law sooner or later into a philosophical discussion. I don't know about you, but I think philosophy should drive the law, not the other way around.

A zygote is a human being simply because it is a human organism.

If you have a problem with the definition given, why don't you critique it?

EDIT: Here's the post:

The Uniform Definition of Death Act defines a dead human being as: ""An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem is dead."

A zygote can't die according to this definition - it has neither respiratory or brain functions. So how can something be a human being if it is impossible for it to die under the definitions of how a human being dies?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I had a feeling you would drag in the law sooner or later into a philosophical discussion. I don't know about you, but I think philosophy should drive the law, not the other way around.

A zygote is a human being simply because it is a human organism.

Likewise, a sperm cell is a human being because it's a human organism.

Originally posted by no1marauder
If you have a problem with the definition given, why don't you critique it?

EDIT: Here's the post:

The Uniform Definition of Death Act defines a dead human being as: ""An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, includ ...[text shortened]... n being if it is impossible for it to die under the definitions of how a human being dies?

The simplest critique is that it is not a biological definition that can be applied to all (or even most) living species. It is a legal definition for legal purposes - and there's no a priori reason to accept it in a philosophical discussion.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Likewise, a sperm cell is a human being because it's a human organism.

A sperm cell isn't an organism - it isn't normatively capable of many of the key features of what makes a living being an organism (e.g. metabolism supported by continuous absorption of energy from environment, reproduction etc.)

Originally posted by lucifershammer
A sperm cell isn't an organism - it isn't normatively capable of many of the key features of what makes a living being an organism (e.g. metabolism supported by continuous absorption of energy from environment, reproduction etc.)

Sperm reproduce! Sperm combine with eggs to form a temporary diploid state which then regenerates the sperm (or egg - which eventually leads to more sperm unless that line dies out). If you are bothered by the "combining with eggs" part, then don't forget - every diploid human adult needs another to reproduce.

In addition, sperm feed off of the seminal plasma for their entire lives; that is until they enter the temporary diploid multicellular stage needed for reproduction and production of the sperm's food from environmental energy and matter sources.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
A zygote can't reproduce either.

I don't know if mitosis of the zygote counts as reproduction, but that's besides the point.

A zygote is the earliest stage of the development of an organism that can reproduce.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I don't know if mitosis of the zygote counts as reproduction, but that's besides the point.

A zygote is the earliest stage of the development of an organism that can reproduce.

Except that the sperm does indeed reproduce.

I was mistaken when I said a zygote cannot reproduce. It is simply another stage in a circular pattern of reproduction. Gamete => zygote => fetus => embryo => baby => adult => gamete.

You can pick any stage in the circle as the thing which is being reproduced, but that simply depends on which part of the process you like best or have decided to look at. No part of that cycle is "better" or "more human" than any other. At all times a human organism exists.