Is a blastocyst a human being?

[bascule]

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.

 

Well, the question of personhood is really more important in my mind. But that's related to the entirely tangential issue of when will computers become people.

[Glider]

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

Going by the definition, I would say when the complex adaptive system of organs are capable of, or sufficiently mature enough to influence each other in such a way that they function in some way as a stable whole, independantly.

 

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.

The cells of a blastocyst are pluripotent (all the same, but each having more than one potential outcome).

 

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

So does an acorn. That still doesn't make it an oak.

 

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.

Nearly, but not quite, and the difference is significant.

Any quibbling over whether something can be a human, but not a human being is a trivial dispute.

I don't think it is trivial. I think this is the crux of the entire thread. The title of the thread is: "Is a blastocyst a human being?" The difference is not between 'a human' and 'a human being'. It is between being 'human' and 'a human (being).

 

Any sample of tissue taken from a human being is human by definition, but these samples are not human beings. Likewise, a blastocyst taken from a human is, by definition human, by virtue of its human DNA, but it is only the DNA that differentiates it from any other (chicken, frog, fish camel etc.). It is only the genome that makes it human. Whilst it is accurate to say that any cell containing human DNA is human, it is not accurate to say any cell (or group of cells) containing human DNA is a human.

[Sayonara]

I always thought the "being" in human being denoted the additional aspects of psychological states and self-awareness, as opposed to simply "human", which is a biological identifier.

[ParanoiA]

...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.

 

You still keep considering morality while you judge whether or not it is a human being. Why? Morality has nothing to do with whether or not a snail is a snail. Morality has nothing to do with whether or not the tree in my front yard is an oak or a maple. So why does morality have anything to do with whether or not a blastocyst is a human being?

 

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.

 

I never said environmental influences don't shape attributes. You would be equally wrong to say genetics play no part in a being's attributes. I'm saying the cells are programmed to build and augment a certain way - hence, attributes. The environment doesn't cause a dog to grow a coat of specialized hair. The environment might have played a role at nudging evolution that direction over time, but the immediate genetics, the instruction set grow the hair. Other attributes are directly influenced by environment, others are not. Most are at the least an environmental influence, with a genetic based response.

 

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...

 

This is the argument to use when we start discussing whether or not it's ok to kill a blastocyst and not feel bad about it - morality, ethics...whatever you want to label it. Not the argument to use when defining whether or not it is a human being. Unless "feeling capacity" is your measurement to define all living things, it has no use in this part of the debate. I would say that neither a plant nor a blade of grass have any feeling, yet we are able to define one from the other.

 

So does an acorn. That still doesn't make it an oak.

 

But it does though. It just doesn't make it a grown up oak. That acorn will grow up only as an oak tree, not a maple, ash, nor mohagany...only an oak. In fact, it's attributes simply change over time and we label this change "oak tree" when it takes root and grows to a sufficient enough size. But it always was an oak. Not an oak tree. Just like a blastocyst is a human being, just not an adult human being.

 

 

Any sample of tissue taken from a human being is human by definition, but these samples are not human beings. Likewise, a blastocyst taken from a human is, by definition human, by virtue of its human DNA, but it is only the DNA that differentiates it from any other (chicken, frog, fish camel etc.). It is only the genome that makes it human. Whilst it is accurate to say that any cell containing human DNA is human, it is not accurate to say any cell (or group of cells) containing human DNA is a human.

 

Right, but these cells you're referring to don't grow into anything without being a product or dependant upon the being's system to propel it. My arm won't grow unless it is part of me - attached to me to receive messages, blood, and etc - it is part of the human being 'ParanoiA'.

 

Skin cells in a dish won't become anything, they are not a being and are not attached to a being.

 

But a blastocyst IS growing. It has a unique genetic code, all of the instructions to develop its attributes to resemble something you feel more comfortable with. It is a human being that will grow uniquely - even amongst like humans.

 

Pssst. Identical twins share the same DNA.

 

And your point? Yes sometimes we get two for one, or more - but that doesn't erase the glaring point that we are all unique.

[Sisyphus]

You still keep considering morality while you judge whether or not it is a human being. Why? Morality has nothing to do with whether or not a snail is a snail. Morality has nothing to do with whether or not the tree in my front yard is an oak or a maple. So why does morality have anything to do with whether or not a blastocyst is a human being?

 

Again, morality doesn't have anything to do with whether it is genetically human. But "genetically human" is not "human being," the former being a scientific category, the latter being a moral category.

 

And your point? Yes sometimes we get two for one, or more - but that doesn't erase the glaring point that we are all unique.

 

The fact that it's not unique doesn't change the fact that it's unique? Do you at least understand why I'm having a little trouble with that one?

[Nemesio]

The basic question is: does a blastocyst meet the criteria of a human being? The best way to argue this point, I believe, is to enumerate the core criteria which comprise a human being, then use that to argue the point.

 

I voted yes.

 

I am understanding the term 'human being' as distinct from 'person,' and taking it to mean simply contains all the properties which allow for the possibility of developing into (or being, or having been) an adult member of the species homo sapiens sapiens. A sperm or biopsy lack this possibility (and actuality, of course). The implicit question of whether simply because it is a human being it therefore has rights is deeply problematic, however.

 

That it is a human being is simply descriptive for me; it doesn't have any particular relevance for any sort of moral discussion -- that Missouri afforded some sort of moral distinction on the basis of a dividing line somewhere between a blastula and an embryo is confusing to me.

 

Nemesio

[Glider]

I always thought the "being" in human being denoted the additional aspects of psychological states and self-awareness, as opposed to simply "human", which is a biological identifier.

You're right, it does. A human blastocyst lacks these attributes which is why I hold that it is not a human being. I think this is the point that's being missed in this thread.

 

But it does though. It just doesn't make it a grown up oak. That acorn will grow up only as an oak tree, not a maple, ash, nor mohagany...only an oak. In fact, it's attributes simply change over time and we label this change "oak tree" when it takes root and grows to a sufficient enough size. But it always was an oak. Not an oak tree. Just like a blastocyst is a human being, just not an adult human being.

I should have been more specific and said "That still doesn't make it an oak (tree)". The cells of an acorn (equivalent to a blastocyst) are oak, as is the shelf in my kitchen (equivalent to a tissue sample). But neither are trees, by any argument.

 

It's the same argument. Is there a difference between being 'oak' and being an 'oak tree'? Is there a difference between being 'human' and being a 'human being'? In both cases, yes.

 

Right, but these cells you're referring to don't grow into anything without being a product or dependant upon the being's system to propel it. My arm won't grow unless it is part of me - attached to me to receive messages, blood, and etc - it is part of the human being 'ParanoiA'.

And in the same way, a blastocyst will not develop unless it embeds in the uterine lining, attached to the mother and dependent upon her for basic requirements; oxygen and nutrients. In fact, many don't. Many fail to embed and are expelled. If they are human beings, why don't they continue to develop?

 

Skin cells in a dish won't become anything, they are not a being and are not attached to a being.

Or they can become more skin, or they can become embryonic stem cells. They have that potential.

 

But a blastocyst IS growing. It has a unique genetic code, all of the instructions to develop its attributes to resemble something you feel more comfortable with.

I don't feel uncomfortable with blastocysts and I resent the implication that my argument is based upon an emotional response. Just because I don't often invite blastocysts to dinner, or drink with them in pubs in no way attests to any form of prejudice. Some of my best friends were blastocysts.

 

A unique genetic code is insufficient to define a human being. Every cell in your arm contains the genetic code unique to you, but as you correctly point out, it is not a human being. It is a part of one. In the same way, a blastocyst is not a human being. It has the potential to become one if allowed to develop. But potential is also insufficient to define a human being.

 

It is a human being that will grow uniquely - even amongst like humans.

No, it really isn't. It may be eventually (although this is not guaranteed), given the correct environment and all other basic requirements such as oxygen, nutrients and everything else it needs, for which it is entirely dependent upon another, unlike a human being.

[bascule]

You're right, it does. A human blastocyst lacks these attributes which is why I hold that it is not a human being. I think this is the point that's being missed in this thread.

 

I think your comparison of acorn:oak tree and blastocyst:human being is apt.

 

Furthermore, a blastocyst in vitro is not and will not become a human being, unless it is implanted back into a human uterus where it can develop.

[Glider]

I think your comparison of acorn:oak tree and blastocyst:human being is apt.

I think it's a very good analogy, but the credit belongs to AzurePhoenix. It's her analogy (see post # 10).

 

Furthermore, a blastocyst in vitro is not and will not become a human being, unless it is implanted back into a human uterus where it can develop.

Absolutely.

[ParanoiA]

You're right, it does. A human blastocyst lacks these attributes which is why I hold that it is not a human being. I think this is the point that's being missed in this thread.

 

It's not being missed, it's being challenged. Some of us reject the notion that it has to have brains, a nervous system, feelings, and etc in order to be deemed "human being".

 

It's the same argument. Is there a difference between being 'oak' and being an 'oak tree'? Is there a difference between being 'human' and being a 'human being'? In both cases, yes.

 

Yes you're right. A piece of oak bark might be "oak". Just like a piece of skin might be "human". But the cells that contain the unique genetic code and initial instruction set and propogate the growth of attributes are the oak tree and human being. We just use these labels to distinguish the stages of development.

 

I see the same problem with the acorn. A tree is just a developed acorn. Most acorns don't develop - they just become food for murauding killer squirrels.

 

And in the same way, a blastocyst will not develop unless it embeds in the uterine lining, attached to the mother and dependent upon her for basic requirements; oxygen and nutrients. In fact, many don't. Many fail to embed and are expelled. If they are human beings, why don't they continue to develop?

 

I can't believe you all don't see the glaring hole in this logic. The hole in this is bigger than Jenna Jameson's money maker. ALL humans require oxygen, nutrients, and etc to develop. Long after leaving the womb we need these things - in fact for our entire life we are dependant upon the processes of nature to live and develop - oxygen, nutrients, iron, etc. or we will die - no longer develop. Your child will never get pubic hair just like a blastocyst will never attain a set of lungs if these processes aren't present.

 

I don't feel uncomfortable with blastocysts and I resent the implication that my argument is based upon an emotional response. Just because I don't often invite blastocysts to dinner, or drink with them in pubs in no way attests to any form of prejudice. Some of my best friends were blastocysts.

 

Some of my best friends would say I haven't developed past a blastocyst.

 

But, I do believe your response is based on predefined end to moral structure and paradigm.

 

No, it really isn't. It may be eventually (although this is not guaranteed), given the correct environment and all other basic requirements such as oxygen, nutrients and everything else it needs, for which it is entirely dependent upon another, unlike a human being.

 

And you're entirely dependant upon the processes of nature, outside of your control and domination, and you are very much a human being. You require the same things. A newborn - separated from the womb - still requires these nutrients from mom. We can simulate these nutrients without mom, just like we can simulate a womb and provide the services of such without mom - well in theory anyway. None of that has anything to do with whether or not it is a human being.

 

 

Furthermore, a blastocyst in vitro is not and will not become a human being, unless it is implanted back into a human uterus where it can develop.

 

And you will not be a human being unless you are provided food, water, specific nutrients, oxygen, and etc. So what's your point? We're all high maintenance.

[Sayonara]

It's not being missed, it's being challenged. Some of us reject the notion that it has to have brains, a nervous system, feelings, and etc in order to be deemed "human being".

But there is a difference between "human" and "human being". Unlike a human, a human being is not just an organism, it is an aware, communicative, and mentally complex entity.

 

And you will not be a human being unless you are provided food, water, specific nutrients, oxygen, and etc. So what's your point? We're all high maintenance.

It's hard to have psychological and emotive states or self-awareness when one is dead.

 

A corpse can be identified as human, just as a blastocyst can. But it is not a human being, it is a human was.

[ParanoiA]

But there is a difference between "human" and "human being". Unlike a human, a human being is not just an organism, it is an aware, communicative, and mentally complex entity.

 

So you say. That is your opinion. I respectfully disagree with that. I don't believe a human being is just an organism. I believe it is a human being from the moment it's genetic code is propogated into existence as one cell. Everything after that is form and attributes, development and so forth.

 

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think it has any real value or "personhood" until it develops brains, emotion, and etc - becomes a mentally complex entity. I don't think it deserves or has earned any rights of its own to live or what not. But I do believe it is a human being.

 

 

It's hard to have psychological and emotive states or self-awareness when one is dead.

 

A corpse can be identified as human' date=' just as a blastocyst can. But it is not a human being, it is a human was.[/quote']

 

I agree, except a blastocyst isn't dead. I'm not really sure what your point here is, but I agree with the above other than the blastocyst's state of existence.

[Sayonara]

So you say. That is your opinion. I respectfully disagree with that. I don't believe a human being is just an organism.

Ah, I see what has happened here. Somewhere along the way the terms have been fuddled up.

 

Nobody is saying a human being is "just an organism", as you put it. We are saying that a human per se is just an organism.

 

A human being has additional attributes that are not simple phenotypic expressions, and which are not evident in a blastocyst.

 

 

I believe it is a human being from the moment it's genetic code is propogated into existence as one cell. Everything after that is form and attributes, development and so forth.

This is what we are terming the human per se element.

 

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think it has any real value or "personhood" until it develops brains, emotion, and etc - becomes a mentally complex entity. I don't think it deserves or has earned any rights of its own to live or what not.

Same here.

 

But I do believe it is a human being.

It's a human per se, certainly.

 

 

I agree, except a blastocyst isn't dead. I'm not really sure what your point here is, but I agree with the above other than the blastocyst's state of existence.

True, a blastocyst is not dead in the common sense of the word. The point of mentioning the corpse was that you stated one has to have food, water air, etc to be a human being, and that is true - because once you die you cease to be a human being but are still human.

 

Where the blastocyst and the corpse are similar is in the fact that they do not have thought processes, abstractive or introspective capabilities, emotive responses, etc. Hence they are not human beings.

[ParanoiA]

Ah, I see what has happened here. Somewhere along the way the terms have been fuddled up.

 

Nobody is saying a human being is "just an organism", as you put it. We are saying that a human per se is just an organism.

 

A human being has additional attributes that are not simple phenotypic expressions, and which are not evident in a blastocyst.

 

No fuddled up terms. Just boxed up thinking. What would lead you to believe that a human being has to have additional attributes that are not simple phenotypic expressions?

 

Here's from dictionary.com, which is quite appropriate as a reference source in this case...

 

human being 

 

1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens. 2. a person, esp. as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species: living conditions not fit for human beings; a very generous human being.

 

Seems to be more interested in its phenotype than attributes and mental complexities and yadda yadda yadda.

 

 

See, I think your argument is perfect for discussing a blastocyst's place in morality and ethics. But there's no reason to think it has to have arms and legs and think and talk and feel to be a human being. Human beings can lack any of these things and they're still human beings. It's just doesn't feel right to you. Like how it might not feel right to consider light is constant and time is pliable.

 

There's no argument anyone has made yet about a blastocyst not being a human being, that can't also be made about a post-birth human being.

[Sayonara]

No fuddled up terms. Just boxed up thinking. What would lead you to believe that a human being has to have additional attributes that are not simple phenotypic expressions?

I think Immanuel Kant would have a thing or two to say about that comment, if he were not so utterly dead. Come to think of it there are any number of philosophers and psychologists, living and otherwise, who'd certainly be able to make better arguments than I can.

 

If you want to talk about boxed up thinking, consider first that you are basically making the argument for nativism, which is much less maneuverable in this discussion than the converse argument for tabula rasa (not that I think either is entirely correct, more that the probable point of accuracy is more likely closer to the latter).

 

An interesting, recent, and relevant paper: Spontaneous and evoked synaptic rewiring in the neonatal neocortex (Le Be JV, Markram H.)

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Aug 29;103(35)

 

Here's from dictionary.com, which is quite appropriate as a reference source in this case...

Dictionary.com is never an appropriate reference source on this site.

 

Seems to be more interested in its phenotype than attributes and mental complexities and yadda yadda yadda.

It doesn't actually mention phenotypic expression. What it does do is allude to the actual meaning of "human being" by stating that they are distinguishable from animals, and by stating that a human being may represent the human species. It is unfortunate that it stops there, but that's what they get for buying definitions from Merriam Webster.

 

The web is littered with references that define "human being" as "n. A human". That doesn't make it right. It's simply a product of the fact that dictionaries do not aim to delve into complex philosophical problems, but rather to tell the average Joe how the word will work in his everyday life.

 

See, I think your argument is perfect for discussing a blastocyst's place in morality and ethics. But there's no reason to think it has to have arms and legs and think and talk and feel to be a human being. Human beings can lack any of these things and they're still human beings. It's just doesn't feel right to you. Like how it might not feel right to consider light is constant and time is pliable.

If I lose a hand, I am still human and still a human being. My mental abilities have not changed (I should hope), and neither has my genotype.

 

If I lose the ability to think in abstract terms (let's say I am in a coma with absolutely no higher brain activity) then I am a human, and not a human being.

 

Some people may consider it abhorrent to say that a person in such a state is "not a human being". This is simply because - as is so often the case - they hear the term being used in everyday life, but don't actually know what it means.

And that's fine - the common tongue usually works great for everyday conversation. Where it does not work as well is in a scientific debate where technical precision is a prerequisite for successful communication.

 

There's no argument anyone has made yet about a blastocyst not being a human being, that can't also be made about a post-birth human being.

So? One has to start "being" at some point.

 

The only way you can make a valid argument after birth is by applying special conditions, such as the coma scenario.

[Sayonara]

Sorry, I should probably have mentioned/expanded...

 

What it does do is allude to the actual meaning of "human being" by stating that they are distinguishable from animals

Consider this: the reason a human is different to a human being is (essentially, for our purposes) the same reason an animal is different to a human being.

 

Integrate that concept, then apply it to a comparison between yourself and a blastocyst.

[ParanoiA]

Sorry, I should probably have mentioned/expanded...

 

 

Consider this: the reason a human is different to a human being is (essentially, for our purposes) the same reason an animal is different to a human being.

 

Integrate that concept, then apply it to a comparison between yourself and a blastocyst.

 

Yes my genetic code is different to an animal - that's why I don't develop attributes associated with a buffalo or water beetle. My introduction and development, life, death is different to other animals. We all start out a cell, just like we're all a glob of cells, and it's a distinguishably different cell from any other animal. Different from the very beginning.

 

I still think your arguments are perfectly valid for debating relevancy and personhood.

[ParanoiA]

Hey, my post after Sayonara's post #65 has disappeared.

[Sayonara]

Yes my genetic code is different to an animal - that's why I don't develop attributes associated with a buffalo or water beetle. My introduction and development, life, death is different to other animals. We all start out a cell, just like we're all a glob of cells, and it's a distinguishably different cell from any other animal. Different from the very beginning.

I am talking about what separates mankind from the animals, in the sense of the faculties which we have and they do not.

The answer "his genetic code, ho ho ho" is a flippant one which does nothing to acknowledge the attributes of a human being for which there are no known genetic causes.

 

You are the same as a blastocyst because you are both human. You are different to the blastocyst (and animals) because you have a particular set of attributes that make you a human being, and which are not shared by the others.

 

I still think your arguments are perfectly valid for debating relevancy and personhood.

I think in a perverse way we are very argumentatively agreeing with each other on at least one key issue. But the ambiguity of the concepts is problematic.

 

Hey, my post after Sayonara's post #65 has disappeared.

Erk. There is nothing in the log for this thread to indicate that any posts have been removed (in fact, the log is empty).

 

What was the gist of it?

[ParanoiA]

I am talking about what separates mankind from the animals' date=' in the sense of the faculties which we have and they do not.

The answer "his genetic code, ho ho ho" is a flippant one which does nothing to acknowledge the attributes of a human being for which there are no known genetic causes.[/quote']

 

These attributes you speak of are genetically executed though. The genetics were there to create them before they showed up so it is not a flippant answer. Nature and environment nudge evolution, but it's the genetics that do the instructing. The instructions and code for my development are there from the first nucleus.

 

These faculties you speak of are generated during development at one point or another.

 

Genetics has everything to do with my position on this so far. It's the common denominator from the first cell to the last day of life. Everything else is the "result" of that genetic exercise.

 

 

Erk. There is nothing in the log for this thread to indicate that any posts have been removed (in fact' date=' the log is empty).

 

What was the gist of it?[/quote']

 

I was just replying back to some things you had in post 65. Oh well, I probably previewed it and "thought" I posted it. I might redo it later. But I'm losing interest. I haven't formed any new arguments, just defending old ones.

[Sayonara]

These attributes you speak of are genetically executed though. The genetics were there to create them before they showed up so it is not a flippant answer. Nature and environment nudge evolution, but it's the genetics that do the instructing. The instructions and code for my development are there from the first nucleus.

I have two counterpoints here.

 

Firstly, if you are going to claim that the fundamental basis of abstract thought is genetic, you need to provide some evidence (or at least one really shiny citation), because that is a really BIG thing to use as a supporting claim. Ironically enough that paper I posted may point towards some intriguing possibilities in that area.

 

Secondly, even if it does have a genetic basis, an unexecuted genotypic encoder in a cellular structure is not the same entity as an active abstract thought process. If there is no equivalence between two entities, they cannot be considered "the same".

 

These faculties you speak of are generated during development at one point or another.

I of course agree with this. But I would argue that they are not evident (and, therefore, probably not present) in the blastocyst stage, whereas they are abundantly evident in everyone from infants to mature humans.

 

Genetics has everything to do with my position on this so far. It's the common denominator from the first cell to the last day of life. Everything else is the "result" of that genetic exercise.

I realise that's your position, but I see you equating a genetic pattern to the thing it may at some point produce, and I perceive that as a reasoning problem.

 

 

I was just replying back to some things you had in post 65. Oh well, I probably previewed it and "thought" I posted it. I might redo it later. But I'm losing interest. I haven't formed any new arguments, just defending old ones.

I know the feeling. Our discussions always seem to go this way, but at least they are interesting

[Royston]

I'll address your responses, mainly because you've horrendously misinterpreted the points I was trying to make...

 

You still keep considering morality while you judge whether or not it is a human being. Why? Morality has nothing to do with whether or not a snail is a snail. Morality has nothing to do with whether or not the tree in my front yard is an oak or a maple. So why does morality have anything to do with whether or not a blastocyst is a human being?

 

No you're bringing morality into it by lumping every stage in a humans existence from blastocyst to corpse and implying that every stage despite scientific evidence means that any stage can be considered 'human'. I have already stated that I don't believe this, so the stages i.e blastocyst or corpse that I do not consider human, means there is no moral argument to these stages, if of course they are human, then we have a moral debate.

 

I never said environmental influences don't shape attributes. You would be equally wrong to say genetics play no part in a being's attributes. I'm saying the cells are programmed to build and augment a certain way - hence, attributes. The environment doesn't cause a dog to grow a coat of specialized hair. The environment might have played a role at nudging evolution that direction over time, but the immediate genetics, the instruction set grow the hair. Other attributes are directly influenced by environment, others are not. Most are at the least an environmental influence, with a genetic based response.

 

I agree, but if you think there are no defining differences between an acorn and an oak, or those differences are irrelevant due to a genetic code, then we're not going to get very far....i.e the same points are going to be brought up, again and again.

 

This is the argument to use when we start discussing whether or not it's ok to kill a blastocyst and not feel bad about it - morality, ethics...whatever you want to label it. Not the argument to use when defining whether or not it is a human being. Unless "feeling capacity" is your measurement to define all living things, it has no use in this part of the debate. I would say that neither a plant nor a blade of grass have any feeling, yet we are able to define one from the other.

 

Again, if you're going to say a blastocyst is a human, then a blastocyst has all the moral considerations you would ascribe to a fully developed human. How can you not if you're going to insist that a blastocyst is human or human being or whatever. I'm stating feeling capacity, because after certain developmental stages then it does become blurred (due to our knowledge) of how much feeling capacity a developing organism has...like I said if you can't make distinctions with stages of development, then any stage of development should have equal moral implications...i.e it's wrong to carry out research, experiments on blastocyts is equally wrong as carrying out research on fully grown humans. If we fail to make these distinctions, then we'll get into all sorts of problems regarding ethics et.c Remember, nobody here is saying a blastocyst is human, so there is no moral argument unless a blastocyst is considered human.

 

That's all I'm going to say on the matter...very enjoyable debate.

[Sayonara]

All that morality stuff is something I would consider an attribute of a human being, rather than a human.

 

Just to rattle the cage a little

[Glider]

It's not being missed, it's being challenged. Some of us reject the notion that it has to have brains, a nervous system, feelings, and etc in order to be deemed "human being".

And the rest of us insist that whilst a biological marker is sufficient to define ‘human’, it is not enough to define human being.

 

There are a set of characteristics that define a ‘human being’, none of which a blastocyst possesses. A brain, a functional nervous system and an integrated set of organs working in concert to maintain an internal environment compatible with life and arranged in a humanoid anatomy are the minimum requirements. On top of these, there are the psychological, cognitive, affective and behavioural characteristics that differentiate a human being from any other primate.

 

Yes you're right. A piece of oak bark might be "oak". Just like a piece of skin might be "human". But the cells that contain the unique genetic code and initial instruction set and propogate the growth of attributes are the oak tree and human being. We just use these labels to distinguish the stages of development.

You are talking about potential. The cells that contain the unique genetic code and initial instruction set and propagate the growth of attributes (that don’t yet exist) hold the potential to become an oak tree, but are not yet (nor may ever be) an oak tree.

 

In the same way, a group of 58.3 +/- 8.1 cells (counted on day 5 after normal fertilisation) holds the potential to become a human being and to express the characteristics that define a human being, which are more than simply the genome.

 

Conversely, this small group of cells cannot be said to be a human being, because the outcome has not been determined. Some may become human beings. Others may not. Some may divide and become two (or in rare cases, more) human beings (MZ twins). It may partially divide and become profoundly conjoined (e.g. a second head on a single body. Does that count as two human beings?). It may develop incorrectly and become completely nonviable. It may just spontaneously abort (this happens quite frequently). There are a large number of possible outcomes.

 

The point is that prior to its development, there is significant room for doubt concerning the outcome. The only thing that you can be sure of, by virtue of the genome, is that, if it develops normally, it won’t become anything other than a human being (or two) and defining a thing by what it is not is no definition at all. Until you are absolutely certain of the outcome, you cannot state that a blastocyst is a human being because that is far from guaranteed, and you can never be certain of the outcome.

 

I see the same problem with the acorn. A tree is just a developed acorn. Most acorns don't develop - they just become food for murauding killer squirrels.

True. It just goes to show, even squirrels can make the distinction between an acorn and an oak tree. Squirrels eat acorns, and live in oak trees. They do not eat oak trees and live in acorns. Squirrels cannot digest most of what an oak tree is made of, because it is very different from what an acorn is made of.

 

I can't believe you all don't see the glaring hole in this logic. The hole in this is bigger than Jenna Jameson's money maker. ALL humans require oxygen, nutrients, and etc to develop.

I see no hole in the logic. We all need these things, true. But human beings have respiratory systems; they can breathe and take oxygen from the air. Human beings have digestive systems and can take nutrients from food, converting one thing (e.g. vegetable protein) into another (e.g. animal protein).

Long after leaving the womb we need these things - in fact for our entire life we are dependant upon the processes of nature to live and develop - oxygen, nutrients, iron, etc. or we will die - no longer develop. Your child will never get pubic hair just like a blastocyst will never attain a set of lungs if these processes aren't present.

True, throughout our lives we are dependent on oxygen, water and food, all of which we can attain for ourselves from birth, through the expression of hard-wired, reflexive behaviours, and later through patterns of reinforced behaviours.

 

A blastocyst can do none of these things. It cannot seek oxygen or nutriment, nor can it take these things for itself, but must be provided with these things by a host body which, in its turn, must provide all the functioning organs necessary to produce these required elements (e.g. lungs, blood, liver…you get the idea). In this, a blastocyst has more in common with a tumour than with a human being.

 

Some of my best friends would say I haven't developed past a blastocyst.

 

But, I do believe your response is based on predefined end to moral structure and paradigm.

I think it’s based more on a comparison of defining characteristics. I challenge the logic of (in essence) taking the term ‘potential’ and substituting ‘actual’. These terms are not the same and are not interchangeable.

 

And you're entirely dependant upon the processes of nature, outside of your control and domination, and you are very much a human being.

Yes, I am a human being, and as such, I am not so dependent upon the processes of nature as a blastocyst.

 

I can go to the shops for food (or grow it, or kill it or whatever). I can light a fire or wear extra clothes for warmth. I can operate on my environment and influence it directly in physical ways. I can survive in a comparatively large range of environmental conditions. I can adapt to them physically (through homeostatic changes), psychologically and behaviourally.

 

You require the same things.

I don’t. I have my own blood stream. I have my own respiratory and digestive systems. I have my own organs to perform the necessary functions for independent life. I have my own teeth (still. Yay for me!). I require nowhere near the support a blastocyst requires, i.e. a living host and all their functions.

A newborn - separated from the womb - still requires these nutrients from mom.

It too has it’s own respiratory and digestive systems. It too is an independent being. It requires basic care and food, sure, but it can feed and digest its food. It can breathe. It has the innate, hard-wired behavioural reflexes that allow it to feed. It also has the innate behavioural capacity to recognise its mother and to ask for and stimulate the production of that food. It is, in short, not comparable to a blastocyst in any way. The only thing comparable to a blastocyst, is another blastocyst.

 

We can simulate these nutrients without mom, just like we can simulate a womb and provide the services of such without mom - well in theory anyway. None of that has anything to do with whether or not it is a human being.

Well, yes. We could keep it in a beaker of Human Wringer’s solution I guess. A human being wouldn’t survive that though.

 

And you will not be a human being unless you are provided food, water, specific nutrients, oxygen, and etc. So what's your point? We're all high maintenance.

I don’t need to be provided with these things. I can seek them out for myself. I am an independent being.

[ParanoiA]

Again, if you're going to say a blastocyst is a human, then a blastocyst has all the moral considerations you would ascribe to a fully developed human. How can you not if you're going to insist that a blastocyst is human or human being or whatever.

 

Because of the reasons you used to say it wasn't human to begin with. It doesn't have any feeling. No cognition. No personhood. For those reasons, I don't believe it has earned any rights whatsoever - only what its maker gives it. The maker being mom, or a lab tech...whatever the case may be.

 

I may very well be playing semantics myself, even though it's not my intention, I just believe a blastocyst is a human being in a very early stage of existence. Later it will begin to look more like the rest of us, and thus we will start to relate more with it - see it more person-like. During all of this, it has not earned any rights to life other than what its maker grants it. When it is born, separated from its mother, then it has its own right to live in my mind.

 

The rights I speak of are an arbitrary moral line that Sisyphus has pointed out. I draw the line there because I can't see forcing a person to do or not do anything with their body. As long as the baby is in the womb, then I say it grows and lives per HER discretion. It's HER body. It's HER creation.

 

Now, growing a human to term in a lab would open a sticky can of worms that I have no opinion on as of yet. If there was something womb-like being used, I would probably draw my arbitrary moral line when it's removed, but I'm not sure really.