Is a blastocyst a human being?

[Sisyphus]

I think it's our paradigms that refuse us to accept it as human. It screws up all of the really cool structuring we've done with morality.

 

Seeing as how the structuring of morality is the only justifiable reason to pick one definition over another, then I don't really see why you think that's not enough.

 

You seem to think the first instance of completed DNA has some special status. You even say it's the "only logical point." What logic is that, exactly? How could there be any? The definition of something is whatever we assign to it. It can't be "wrong." In this particular case, it just happens to lead to some unfortunate effects if you a) fail to see that it's arbitrary, and b) try to apply rigid moral rules about our relation to it.

[Phi for All]

You seem to think the first instance of completed DNA has some special status. You even say it's the "only logical point." What logic is that, exactly? How could there be any? The definition of something is whatever we assign to it. It can't be "wrong." In this particular case, it just happens to lead to some unfortunate effects if you a) fail to see that it's arbitrary, and b) try to apply rigid moral rules about our relation to it.

This has always been my stance on the matter. You can't grant the status of being "a human being" too early in the process or you create a situation where the rights of a blastocyst are equal to that of the mother. Legally and morally, do you want the death of each bit of "human" matter investigated for possible murder? If a blastocyst is a human doesn't that open the door for all kinds of future control possibilities?

[doG]

I'm saying the first cell is a human.

 

Do you think that first cell should have the same rights as any other human?

[ParanoiA]

This has always been my stance on the matter. You can't grant the status of being "a human being" too early in the process or you create a situation where the rights of a blastocyst are equal to that of the mother. Legally and morally, do you want the death of each bit of "human" matter investigated for possible murder? If a blastocyst is a human doesn't that open the door for all kinds of future control possibilities?

 

Do you two really understand what you are saying here? You're not going to judge objectively because of the legal consequences?

 

See, this is why I can't stand humans and their overrated never ending pursuit of moral perfection.

 

Just draw the line by saying people can kill what's inside them all day long any way they want. Done deal. Yeah it's a human and who gives a crap. Can these things even be seen with the naked eye? Seriously, I'd like to know.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't want all of that legal crap you outlined. But I'm not so sure that deciding life begins at the first cell, wouldn't actually validate the absurdity of giving it rights in the first place.

[ParanoiA]

Do you think that first cell should have the same rights as any other human?

 

No I don't. The only rights it should have is what the mother gives it.

[Phi for All]

Do you two really understand what you are saying here? You're not going to judge objectively because of the legal consequences?

It's funny that you talk about logic and objectivity and then create a completely unworkable, illogical framework which is subjectively corrupt. There are people out there right now that want to fill the prison system with women seeking abortions.

See, this is why I can't stand humans and their overrated never ending pursuit of moral perfection.

My stance has nothing to do with moral perfection.

Just draw the line by saying people can kill what's inside them all day long any way they want. Done deal. Yeah it's a human and who gives a crap. Can these things even be seen with the naked eye? Seriously, I'd like to know.

I am drawing a line. My line is a lot further along in the process than yours is and has the benefit of allowing for practical application.

 

And humans give a crap about humans and I'm actually kind of glad about it.

 

And no, they can't be seen by the naked eye, another reason it makes no sense to call them a human.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want all of that legal crap you outlined. But I'm not so sure that deciding life begins at the first cell, wouldn't actually validate the absurdity of giving it rights in the first place.

Deciding life begins at the first cell would validate many of the crap-pushers and if you don't believe that then you should hop a bus over to Colorado Springs and I'll meet you there to tour some Family Values facilities.

[Dak]

Just draw the line by saying people can kill what's inside them all day long any way they want. Done deal. Yeah it's a human and who gives a crap.

 

thing is tho, is that human has different meanings (as glider said).

 

human1 -- biologically, genetically, histologically etc human. in this way, you and i, and blastocytes, and sperm, my left arm, and hair, cells, skin, bones, cancer etc from humans, are human.

 

human2 -- a single member of the species 'homo sapiens'. in this way, i'd argue that adults, childeren, babies, blastocytes, and sperm, could all be considered human.

 

human3 -- human being. this is harder to define, but imo it's ultimately an ethical term -- human beings are what deserve the protection of our ethics. being imotile, unsensing sacks of cells, blastocytes are not human beings.

 

now... imo, it's no worse to kill a human2 than it is to kill any other animal. imo its no worse to kill an untinking, unfeeling animal than it is to kill a plant. hence, imo, killing blastocytes is not wrong.

 

it only becomes more wrong to kill a human than an animal when we're talking about human3, which is what i meant when i said its an ethical term. what makes it ok to kill cows but not human3s is that human3s are 'human beings'. 'human being' basically summs up all the things we like to think puts us (human3s) above other animals and makes us special, none of which a blastocyte posesses.

 

they will one day, but the point is, untill that day comes, they dont. killing a child is not killing an adult because you've prevented the child becoming an adult, and so killing a blastocyte is not killing a human3.

 

killing a human2, maybe, but unless you think that animals on a level with sea-sponges deserve the same protection as human3s, in a world where more worthy animals such as cows and pigs are routinely slaughtered, it doesn't really matter imo.

[ParanoiA]

It's funny that you talk about logic and objectivity and then create a completely unworkable, illogical framework which is subjectively corrupt. There are people out there right now that want to fill the prison system with women seeking abortions.

 

I didn't create anything, I interpreted it. I let the chips fall where they may. I don't care what the downstream consequences are in terms of how honest I try to look at something. I would rather see it for what it is, and move the chips accordingly.

 

So far, I haven't heard any reason supporting a blastocyst not being a human that couldn't be applied to fully grown humans in some form. Legal consequences shouldn't exist for micro-scopic humans. I would say simply your maker grants your rights - mom, dad, a lab tech...

 

Now, realistically speaking? Mokele's American Taliban would certainly love the interpretation of a human being begins with the first cell, and I've never met a democrat that objected to killing unborn babies so the battle lines would be drawn and innocent people would bear the consequences.

 

But that's not going to keep me from realizing that human life begins with that first cell. No matter how odd and stupid you all think it is.

 

I just respectfully disagree with, I guess 18 different people at this point. Wouldn't be the first time I've had to go it alone...

[doG]

No I don't. The only rights it should have is what the mother gives it.

 

So you draw the line at birth? Do you think cases like Scott Peterson's should not be considered a double murder then?

[ParanoiA]

So you draw the line at birth? Do you think cases like Scott Peterson's should not be considered a double murder then?

 

Hmm..well that's kinda sticky. My knee jerk response would be that mom is ultimate bearer of rights, father second..not really sure after that but the point being that perhaps it should still be considered a double murder since he killed the unborn child, violating its rights implicitly granted by its mother. Or, I guess you could also see it as robbing mom's right to grant her unborn child the right to live.

 

I do draw a line a birth however, in that I believe it then has its own right to live. I just don't like the idea of the state telling a woman how she can grow something inside her body. It seems perverse to me. A woman shouldn't have to get an "ok" from anybody concerning her body, and how she chooses to manage the plumbing...

 

When it is autonomous, then it can be smothered and processed by the state just like the rest of us, but until then it's mom's property that should be born by her choosing.

[Glider]

Again, an acorn, an oak, a zygote, a grownup, a kitten, a cat...it's all just humans classifying the stages a living organism goes through. It's important to distinguish these stages for millions of reasons - but for this particular discussion I think it's a disservice that has clouded and boxed up our thinking.

Not really. A seed is not an organism. A blastocyct is not an organism. Here's the Wiki definition "In biology and ecology, an organism (in Greek organon = instrument) is a living complex adaptive system of organs that influence each other in such a way that they function in some way as a stable whole.The majority of an acorn is stored nutrient. The seed consists of a tiny clump of cells; no root tissue, no stem, no xylem nor phloem. Whilst it consists of plant cells, it is not a plant. In the same way, a blastocyct a small clump of undifferentiated cells, is not an organism.

 

Just because you can't talk to it, poke it, or get a response from it that you would get from most humans doesn't keep it from being a human being. You can't get a response from a vegetable or comatose person either - and they're not capable of suffering - yet they're still human beings.

Yes, a comatose person is a human being (the vegetable isn't though). It has the structure and physiological functions that define the human organism.

 

So if someone removes my brain then I'm no longer human?

Yes, you are human, but you're no longer a human being, you are a human corpse.

 

A genetically unique lump of meat is all any animal really is.

Not so. I can go to the butchers and see many genetically unique lumps of meat. None of which is classed as an animal, whilst all are animal.

This meat contains a brain that utilizes electricity and neurons to generate what we think of as thought - the way it fires, the strengths of the various areas of the brain, the chemicals, are all influenced and molded by this genetic instruction set that started with a single egg cell, with a unique nucleus that contained everything needed to grow into a full sized ego prone human being.

This is true. The genetic instruction encoded in the blastocyct enables the cells to differentiate into the many different organs and tissue types that form a human being. That still doesn't make a blastocyct a human being.

 

The moment my unique genetic code was put in motion - my first cell - is the obvious starting point, in my humble opinion.

Again, this is true. It is the starting point of your growth into a specific organism; a human being.

 

Some really great points in here, I hope this discussion stays interesting. I know it sounds like I've already made up my mind, and I have to admit I'm fairly commited to this line of thought so far, but this is part of the critical thinking process that I have to go through to be confident in what I finally decide.

 

So far, it seems like everyone is basically saying it isn't a human because it doesn't resemble something they think of as human - just because it's itty bitty, doesn't have stuff that they have and so forth. But when you challenge your own thoughts about the line you have drawn you have to agree there is no consistency there.

I think it's more the use of terms that makes the difference. As I said before, there is a significant difference between 'human' and human being. Tissue (e.g. a small muscle biopsy) can be human, but is not a human being. It lacks the defining physiological and psychological characteristics of a human being (or any kind of being). A blastocyct can be human, but, for the same reasons, it is not a human being.

 

If you say it has to have a nervous system then when does it officially have a nervous system? How far into nervous system construction does it finally have one? One cell? A million cells? When you finally make a decision on when it's finally built, then subtract one cell and try convincing yourself that's not a human just because it's one cell shy of your line.

 

That's what lead me to this. That perhaps, it's one cell that IS the line.

A functional central nervous system is a defining characteristic of a human being. It doesn't really matter if you add or subtract single cells. If there is no functional CNS, then what remains is human, but not a human being.

[ParanoiA]

Excellent post Glider. You've got me stuck on the organism part. So, when does it become an organism?

[doG]

So I wonder, is Michael Clancy an organism?

[ParanoiA]

So I wonder, is Michael Clancy an organism?

 

Very compelling. But I can't see the slide show or anything from here at work. I'll have to check it out tonight. That's a poignant photograph, and thought provoking caption.

[In My Memory]

Well, taking the blastocyst as a whole, its rightfully called alive because it metabolizes food for growth, energy, and continued homoestasis, and it fits all conventional definitions of life:

Life is the characteristic state of organisms and individual cells. Properties common to the known organisms found on Earth (plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea and bacteria) are that they are carbon-and-water-based, are cellular with complex organization, undergo metabolism, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt in succeeding generations.

 

In addition to being alive, its rightfully called an organism:

In biology and ecology, an organism (in Greek organon = instrument) is a living complex adaptive system of organs that influence each other in such a way that they function in some way as a stable whole.

As opposed to Glider, I think the tissues of a blastocyst arent just an undifferenciated mass, they actually work together as a unified whole to give rise to other components and processes, and its classification as an organism isnt wholly different from the classification of single-celled protozoa as organisms.

 

And with being a living organism, they contain all of the necessary genetic information to fit neatly into the human family, genus, and species.

 

By all biological and academic definitions, blastocysts are human in the most concrete sense. I dont think there is a difference between calling something a human or calling something a human being, the words are (for all intents and purposes) nearly sematically equivalent. Any quibbling over whether something can be a human, but not a human being is a trivial dispute.

 

Now, as far as a moral discussion goes, something being a human or not is irrelevant. What matters is personhood (and it should be understood that some humans can be non-persons, and some non-humans can be persons)... but I dont know if defining personhood is really the intent bascule had when he started this thread.

[Royston]

Well, taking the blastocyst as a whole, its rightfully called alive because it metabolizes food for growth, energy, and continued homoestasis, and it fits all conventional definitions of life:

 

 

In addition to being alive, its rightfully called an organism:

 

As opposed to Glider, I think the tissues of a blastocyst arent just an undifferenciated mass, they actually work together as a unified whole to give rise to other components and processes, and its classification as an organism isnt wholly different from the classification of single-celled protozoa as organisms.

 

And with being a living organism, they contain all of the necessary genetic information to fit neatly into the human family, genus, and species.

 

I'm not entirely sure why the organism argument was brought up, because it adds nothing to the original question, but ok. With your last point, yes we classify organisms so we know the difference between a monkey fetus and a human fetus...we also classify stages of development, but you've convenientally decided to ignore that.

 

I dont think there is a difference between calling something a human or calling something a human being, the words are (for all intents and purposes) nearly sematically equivalent. Any quibbling over whether something can be a human, but not a human being is a trivial dispute.

 

I guess, but if your going to use the classification argument, then you can't ignore the classification of stages of development. The 'being' of human being, is just a practical term just as classifying is practical.

 

Now, as far as a moral discussion goes, something being a human or not is irrelevant. What matters is personhood (and it should be understood that some humans can be non-persons, and some non-humans can be persons)... but I dont know if defining personhood is really the intent bascule had when he started this thread.

 

I agree, I think the thread was just trying to assert that we can't ascribe human qualities, until the organism displays human qualities...that is, it has developed into a human.

[ParanoiA]

I agree, I think the thread was just trying to assert that we can't ascribe human qualities, until the organism displays human qualities...that is, it has developed into a human.

 

I disagree. It seems clear to me this thread was started to determine whether or not a blastocyst is a human - or human being. Personhood is a quality "added" to the description of a certain human being. Kind of like an adjective. I see it valuable only in terms of moral discussion. But I didn't think we were considering morality, downstream consquences or anything other than whether or not a blastocyst is a human.

 

To me, those things come second. First, I need to decide what is what. Second, what does that mean morally? Do I need to partition a moral definition? That sort of thing. I thought this thread, was just the first thing. Obviously throwing in morality doesn't hurt, but folks are deciding the first thing because of morality. That just seems obviously intellectually dishonest.

 

It came from the Amendment 2 stem cell debate. The first line of the proposed amendment says no person shall clone or attempt to clone a human being. Then later in the document it says it protects the SCNT process.

 

As a result, the republicans have said this is human cloning and therefore the amendment contradicts itself. The demorats have said no, a blastocyst is not a human, so there is no contradiction.

 

So this post was created by Mr. Bascule to keep from derailing the stem cell thread.

 

I completely agree with IMM's post wholeheartedly. Including the personhood. Morally speaking, I don't see why it matters that microscopic cells are human beings.

[In My Memory]

Snail,

I'm not entirely sure why the organism argument was brought up, because it adds nothing to the original question, but ok. With your last point, yes we classify organisms so we know the difference between a monkey fetus and a human fetus...we also classify stages of development, but you've convenientally decided to ignore that.

I dont think its relevant that I'm completely ignoring it, because its not really a big deal that something can belong to more than one group at once, especially since species group and stage of development group arent mutually exclusively.

 

Its a human being (species group) who just happens to be a blastocyst at development (development group), theres no conflict.

 

I agree, I think the thread was just trying to assert that we can't ascribe human qualities, until the organism displays human qualities...that is, it has developed into a human.

Well, now you're talking about a more abstract definition of "human", one thats distinct from the concrete biological definition, and you also introduce some fuzziness to the way human is defined. For instance, if you define a human as "having human qualities", then the definition of human is a little circular because "human" needs to be defined before you can state that something is a "human quality"... but thats just a word game and probably not really that important for discussion in the thread.

 

What qualities did you have in mind that are "human qualities"?

[Royston]

I disagree. It seems clear to me this thread was started to determine whether or not a blastocyst is a human - or human being. Personhood is a quality "added" to the description of a certain human being. Kind of like an adjective. I see it valuable only in terms of moral discussion. But I didn't think we were considering morality, downstream consquences or anything other than whether or not a blastocyst is a human.

 

Errr, IMM said that the intention of this thread was not to discuss 'personhood' and I agreed, and you also agree. (Italic) This is precisely what I said. So why are you disagreeing.

[bascule]

Now, as far as a moral discussion goes, something being a human or not is irrelevant. What matters is personhood (and it should be understood that some humans can be non-persons, and some non-humans can be persons)... but I dont know if defining personhood is really the intent bascule had when he started this thread.

 

It's certainly a big part of it for me.

 

The "human being" bit came out of the Missouri amendment which provides protections for stem cell research, and the difference between "cloning" stem cells and cloning a human being. The amendment explicitly bans the latter.

[Royston]

Well, now you're talking about a more abstract definition of "human", one thats distinct from the concrete biological definition, and you also introduce some fuzziness to the way human is defined. For instance, if you define a human as "having human qualities", then the definition of human is a little circular because "human" needs to be defined before you can state that something is a "human quality"... but thats just a word game and probably not really that important for discussion in the thread.

 

What qualities did you have in mind that are "human qualities"?

 

It was a clumsy sentence, I was in a rush...and I completely agree that human qualities does become fuzzy, and to define 'human qualities' you need to define what is a human. I just don't agree that a 'solely' genetic classification defines an organism for all it's attributes, which is what Paranoia and yourself seem to be arguing...again I'm just about to go out, but I'll come back to this.

 

EDIT...

 

It's certainly a big part of it for me.

 

Right, now we can start tackling what defines a human, and it's certainly more than a genetic code carrying clump of cells, in it's early developmental stages, obviously that's not targeted at you Bascule.

[ParanoiA]

Errr, IMM said that the intention of this thread was not to discuss 'personhood' and I agreed, and you also agree. (Italic) This is precisely what I said. So why are you disagreeing.

 

Well, I thought you were trying to box up the debate by redirecting attention to the chorus of "we can't ascribe human qualities, until the organism displays human qualities..." Apparently that's not what you meant.

[ParanoiA]

...and I completely agree that human qualities does become fuzzy, and to define 'human qualities' you need to define what is a human. I just don't agree that a 'solely' genetic classification defines an organism for all it's attributes...

 

You don't agree that an organism's genetic classification distinguishes it uniquely, even amongst like organisms while it's attributes are the consequence of these genetics, which will change throughout the organism's development and life, until death?

 

Gee..it's not a loaded question or anything...

[Sisyphus]

Pssst. Identical twins share the same DNA.

[Royston]

You don't agree that an organism's genetic classification distinguishes it uniquely, even amongst like organisms while it's attributes are the consequence of these genetics, which will change throughout the organism's development and life, until death?

 

Gee..it's not a loaded question or anything...

 

Right, let's start again. I said nothing about uniqueness, and you're completely wrong that genetics shape attributes till the day we die, environmental influences are equally important, and even shape future genetic change in future generations.

 

What defines a human becomes fuzzy when it goes past a certain developmental stage...it becomes fuzzy because our knowledge of feeling capacity becomes fuzzy. What we 'know' is paramount in the discussion, we 'know' that a blastocyst has no feeling capacity whatsoever, it has no neurological make up...at all, we 'know' that a chemoautotroph has no feeling capacity whatsoever, they may as well be the same organism if you're going to ascribe any moral implications to such an organism.

 

Any arguments trying to smear what is human or not e.g a human in a vegetative state is moot, because we do not have the knowledge to define the feeling capacity of a human in a vegetative state, but we do have the knowledge that a blastocyst has no attributes to feel pain, emotion or any other attributes we use to describe a human. That is the difference, and I completely agree with Bascule.