Is a blastocyst a human being?

[ParanoiA]

You have still not answered my earlier question: Do you believe that you (by which I mean mind, body, emotions, consciousness, etc - not just your genetic code) are equivalent to a blastocyst?

 

Sorry Sayonara, I just noticed you asked this question...

 

Equivalent in what sense? The blastocyst hasn't developed a mind, body, emotions, consciousness yet - which are the things we associate as human being. Just like we think a rock is solid rather than mostly space. We just don't see the being in a blastocyst because we have been conditioned to relate "developed" features as a being. We've never been exposed to this level of life - so our "middle world" brains are not evolved to understand it.

 

I wonder what Richard Dawkins thinks on this subject. Has he ever weighed in on when human life begins or when it becomes a being?

 

Notice I'm not concered with value at the moment, since value is a different discussion.

[Glider]

Notice I'm not concered with value at the moment,

Nor answering the question apparently

 

It is an excellent question that I wish I had thought of.

 

You contend that: blastocyst = human being. If this is true, then: human being = blastocyst.

 

ergo, you are a blastocyst. Is this true?

[Sayonara]

It would certainly appear from his last post that ParanoiA is finally beginning to see what our issue is.

[Glider]

It would seem so, finally.

[ParanoiA]

It would certainly appear from his last post that ParanoiA is finally beginning to see what our issue is.

 

Hardly..

 

Yes, I'm equal to a blastocyst and a blastocyst is equal to me. I'm a developed blastocyst. As much as a tree is a developed seed. Sorry I didn't make that clear. I was coming fresh off that Dawkins video and was contemplating the parallel between his middle world brain bit and this blastocyst thing.

 

See, I got into trouble going where you two are going, because I believe you are arguing value when you think you are trying to argue objectivity. So far, everyone's arguments contain an appeal to value or significance within the logic - why does a being have to matter? Why do I have to matter in order to be a being?

[bascule]

See, I got into trouble going where you two are going, because I believe you are arguing value when you think you are trying to argue objectivity. So far, everyone's arguments contain an appeal to value or significance within the logic - why does a being have to matter? Why do I have to matter in order to be a being?

 

And now we get to empathy, which if you ask me is the basis of all morality. We treat people certain ways because we can empathise with how they feel about things.

 

We don't afford moral consideration to a rock because if we were a rock, we'd merely be an inanimate, solid object and therefore have no basis from which to care how we were treated.

 

We afford feeling beings moral consideration because, like us, they can feel, and shouldn't make people feel ways that we would't want to feel ourselves.

 

The golden rule, do unto others as you would have do unto you, is a basic, guiding moral principle which is almost universally agreed upon.

 

I do not afford a blastocyst moral consideration because it has no more hardware for giving rise to perception than does a rock.

[Royston]

I do not afford a blastocyst moral consideration because it has no more hardware for giving rise to perception than does a rock.

 

Exactly, and we have 'evidence' to prove a blastocyst has no hardware for perception. So I guess the question is, Paranoia do you feel you're equivalent to a rock ?

[ParanoiA]

I do not afford a blastocyst moral consideration because it has no more hardware for giving rise to perception than does a rock.

 

Exactly, and we have 'evidence' to prove a blastocyst has no hardware for perception. So I guess the question is, Paranoia do you feel you're equivalent to a rock ?

 

You have both just validated my point. You are considering whether or not a blastocyst is a human BASED on moral consideration - not on objective reasoning. You are arguing value.

 

When the sun is shining through my window it is daytime. Whether or not there are moral consequences for it being daytime is irrelevant - it is daytime. Period. I believe a blastocyst is a being - period. The moral consequences are irrelevant to that conclusion. I don't empathize with it because I'm a fully developed human.

 

See, I don't think a blastocyst has more VALUE than a developed being based on exactly what you two are saying - empathy. I can relate to a developed human - not with a glob of cells that I can't see. But that has nothing to do with whether or not it is a being.

 

A blastocyst has no moral value, in my opinion. However, it is a being, in my opinion.

 

Oh, and no, I'm not equivalent to a rock.

[AzurePhoenix]

You have both just validated my point. You are considering whether or not a blastocyst is a human BASED on moral consideration - not on objective reasoning. You are arguing value.

On the contrary, they are pointing out that a being does inherantly call for moral consideration, based upon the more clinical traits that make a being a being in the first place. But that morality comes after something displays the traits of a being. Whether or not something IS a being in the first place has nothing to do with morals.

 

A being inherantly earns itself moral consideration. But moral consideration does not make something a being.

 

When the sun is shining through my window it is daytime. Whether or not there are moral consequences for it being daytime is irrelevant - it is daytime. Period.

That's what we're saying. Regardless of the moral value placed on a being, there is still an objective clinical definition of what a being is. And a blastocyst does not qualify for beinghood under the most widely accepted understanding of that definition as we here understand it. Period.

 

But that has nothing to do with whether or not it is a being.

that's right. Something isn't a being because of it's moral values, something is simply more likely to deserve those moral concepts because it has the traits of a being. SImple, non-morality-defined traits that a blastocyst distinctly lacks.

[ParanoiA]

And a blastocyst does not qualify for beinghood under the most widely accepted understanding of that definition as we here understand it. Period.

 

And this has been the crux all along. This widely accepted understanding of that definition as we here understand it is what I'm challenging. I take issue with your "accepted" definition. I know I'm in the minority on it, but I noticed, per the poll, I do have some company. I just hope they're not all religiously driven.

[YT2095]

Hardly..

 

Yes, I'm equal to a blastocyst and a blastocyst is equal to me. I'm a developed blastocyst. As much as a tree is a developed seed.

 

Hmmm.. I don`t think That illustration is a particularly good analogue, so you are Sperm and Ovum now also?

 

Sappling might have been a litte better, however flawed that would be also.

[ParanoiA]

Hmmm.. I don`t think That illustration is a particularly good analogue, so you are Sperm and Ovum now also?

 

Sappling might have been a litte better, however flawed that would be also.

 

Well, I'm the product of the sperm and ovum. Neither the sperm, nor the ovum contain my DNA - they contribute to my DNA. Remember, I said the first cell that is me...is me.

 

Whatever you call that step - I'm a developed "that".

 

By the way...I resemble that quote of yours.

[GutZ]

Well, I'm the product of the sperm and ovum. Neither the sperm, nor the ovum contain my DNA - they contribute to my DNA. Remember, I said the first cell that is me...is me.

 

Whatever you call that step - I'm a developed "that".

 

Would'nt that mean that your experiences defines you more than your biological make-up? I probably don't have an original cell on me now. In the future genetically engineering probably will give us the ability to manipulate many aspects of ourselves. At that point would we still be "me" if that were to happen?

 

I guess though as it stands now genetic disposition does play a large role in our tendency to be a certian way. I don't think that will hold forever, So I still say that my experience define me as who I am (i.e. a being).

[bascule]

A blastocyst has no moral value, in my opinion. However, it is a being, in my opinion.

 

So is an adult bonobo. An adult bonobo is a hell of a lot more of a being than a blastocyst. An adult bonobo, after all, started out as a blastocyst which is for all intents and purposes identical to the one you started from, save for its DNA contents.

 

Is a adult bonobo more or less of a being than a human blastocyst?

Is a adult human more or less of a being than an adult bonobo?

[AzurePhoenix]

And this has been the crux all along. This widely accepted understanding of that definition as we here understand it is what I'm challenging. I take issue with your "accepted" definition. I know I'm in the minority on it, but I noticed, per the poll, I do have some company. I just hope they're not all religiously driven.

The way I see it, in matters of classification through definition, the only true meaning applied to a term applied to that which is more of an abstract concept used to sort things than anything else is ONLY determined by the majority agreement on what that term means and applies to.

 

It's much like the debate on Pluto's planethood, or as to what constitutes a species, or the very definition of life. It's not as if there is a technical, true meaning of the word that can be formulated out (especially with an archaic, ambiguous term like "being") so the closest thing to a valid definition lies within that general concensus. And that definition is by no means static. And of course, I'm simply arguing for the best biological meaning for the word. Religion or philosophy or hell knows what else can just as easily have their own different but not invalid understandings of the term. But WITHIN those groups only one meaning should prevail.

 

And as it stands, by the general understanding of the word being, a blastocyst simply isn't one. And while personally your perception of what a being is simply doesn't make a lick of goddamned sense to me, you could still rightfully contend that the term should be changed and that the blastocyst should be considered a being, but that's entirely different from arguing the idea that IS one. Semantically.

 

I swear, I should be shot for some of the things I write out

[ParanoiA]

I posted this definition before...so here it is again

 

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.

 

From dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/human%20being

 

By that definition, a blastocyst fits. It is an individual of the genus homo; a member of the species homo sapien.

 

I'm sorry it doesn't have hair yet. A 10 year old doesn't have pubic hair either. I'm sorry the blastocyst does not have a brain yet. A 10 year old doesn't have a fully developed brain either. Neuronic activity will skyrocket in their teens. I'm sorry the blastocyst can't reproduce yet. A 10 year old girl also can't reproduce yet - or most of them anyway.

 

There is a short list of things not developed yet in things you call human beings - that doesn't mean they are NOT beings. The difference is, they have the "appearance" of the essentials that we foolishly require in order to empathize and intuitively relate to it. It seems obvious to me, a blastocyst is a human being under development - and very quick development. In just 9 months, actually less, it will develop all of the attributes you seem to feel it has to in order to be a "being".

 

Is a adult bonobo more or less of a being than a human blastocyst?

Is a adult human more or less of a being than an adult bonobo?

 

They are all beings. I don't get the insistance on more or less being-hood. You are either a being or not.

 

Now, you may be an insignificant being in my opinion. I don't think a bonobo is a more significant being than a human - but they're both beings.

[ParanoiA]

Let me ask some questions of you all:

 

Exactly how much development has to be realized before you consider it a being?

 

How do you know the blastocyst doesn't perceive or experience?

 

Why is an infant a being, when it hasn't developed fully, yet a blastocyst is not?

 

The attributes you all appear to require seem arbitrary and chosen out of intuition. How does your intuition help with understanding the constancy of light? How does that same intuition justified when dealing with quantum physics?

 

Our intuition has led us astray before, but once you get over the initial conceptual hurdle it becomes easier to visualize and understand. I feel the same way about when we become human beings at a microscopic size.

[Royston]

All these questions have already been answered...repeatedly, Paranoia you seem to have a knack of skewing perfectly legitimate points into nonsense, because you either refuse to understand, or you don't understand.

 

Would you mind if I ask you a question. Do you ascribe the blastocyst that developed into you, as always being you ?

 

Please think about it carefully, and then consider the difference between that statement, and the question originally raised in the OP. I'm not meaning to sound patronising, but the reason this thread has sustained for so long is that you're misinterpreting and perhaps misunderstanding key points that have been raised so far.

[AzurePhoenix]

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.

---

By that definition, a blastocyst fits. It is an individual of the genus homo; a member of the species homo sapien.

No, it doesn't fit. A blastocyst is not a member of the human species. It is a cellular step on the way to becoming one. Human in nature, but not A human. And not a being because it doesn't have the criteria of being-hood. This case and point is made in definition two, as you have posted it. "a person." A blastocyst is not a person. And what is a person? An entity that represents the characteristics we have been using to define being. Although one could debate that a person is simply and specifically the human variety of the more generic self-aware being.

 

I'm sorry it doesn't have hair yet. A 10 year old doesn't have pubic hair either. I'm sorry the blastocyst does not have a brain yet. A 10 year old doesn't have a fully developed brain either. Neuronic activity will skyrocket in their teens. I'm sorry the blastocyst can't reproduce yet. A 10 year old girl also can't reproduce yet - or most of them anyway.

Not fully devloped, but is the ten year old self-aware? Does s/he have consciousness, thoughts? It doesn't matter how well developed those thing sare, nor how complex, only that they're there.

 

And with this quote above, you still sound as if you're arguing for a blastoct's beinghood based on a definition of being we all share when this is clearly not the case. As it stands, we cannot accurately argue whether or not a blastocyst is a being until we come to terms on what a being is. And I'm afraid your views on that simply seem very muddled and nonsensical.

 

There is a short list of things not developed yet in things you call human beings - that doesn't mean they are NOT beings. The difference is, they have the "appearance" of the essentials that we foolishly require in order to empathize and intuitively relate to it.

It's a matter of classification on the heirarchy of cognitive ability in nature. You continue to be the one who feels that empathy and familiarity is a major issue in the definition itself. It's not, it's simply a trait, a notably defining one. Just as non-consciousness is a notably defining trait in non-beings. Stop falsely forcing non-objectivity where you wish to find it.

 

It seems obvious to me, a blastocyst is a human being under development - and very quick development. In just 9 months, actually less, it will develop all of the attributes you seem to feel it has to in order to be a "being".

Yes, under developement, ripe with potentiality! Almost there! But not quite yet.

 

They are all beings. I don't get the insistance on more or less being-hood. You are either a being or not.

No one here ever said that any being is more of a being than another being. Only that there's a clear difference between a being and a non-being. But then again, like everything else in science, there might actually be a middle-ground between being and non-being, but of course, something like consciousness is still rather hard to measure and completley "map" at this point.

 

Now, you may be an insignificant being in my opinion. I don't think a bonobo is a more significant being than a human - but they're both beings.

Oh, I don't know, I've never encountered nor heard of an insignificant bonobo, chimp, gorilla, orangutan, dolphin, parrot or octopus, but I've certainly met countless insignificant humans

[AzurePhoenix]

Exactly how much development has to be realized before you consider it a being?

Simple awareness and free thought beyond the base-level hardwired instincts and reactions of genetic programming.

 

How do you know the blastocyst doesn't perceive or experience?

it has none of the anatomical tissues or structures necessary for such things. It seems to me that to guess otherwise would require a supernatural cog in the gears.

 

Why is an infant a being, when it hasn't developed fully, yet a blastocyst is not?

does an infant have a brain that supports and functionally carries out consciousness, no matter how insignificant? Does a Blastocyst?

 

The attributes you all appear to require seem arbitrary and chosen out of intuition. How does your intuition help with understanding the constancy of light? How does that same intuition justified when dealing with quantum physics?

Okay, one more time, this is NOT a matter of understanding the nature of something, this is an abstract matter of classification and organization through definition. There is no equation, there is only the most widely accepted understanding of what is. Just like the separation between species. Just like the definition of what constitutes a planet. The definitions aren't real, they're only there to help us organize our understanding.

 

Our intuition has led us astray before, but once you get over the initial conceptual hurdle it becomes easier to visualize and understand. I feel the same way about when we become human beings at a microscopic size.

We all know a blastocyst is an undeveloped cell with the potential to develop into a functional human organism. What that is called doesn't change that. You are placing an illogical amount of weight on what these definitions are representing.

[ParanoiA]

All these questions have already been answered...repeatedly, Paranoia you seem to have a knack of skewing perfectly legitimate points into nonsense, because you either refuse to understand, or you don't understand.

 

 

Actually, it's just been awhile and I'm not clear on what ground we've covered and what we haven't. sorry.

 

Would you mind if I ask you a question. Do you ascribe the blastocyst that developed into you, as always being you ?

 

Well, yes. This would be similar to asking: Do you ascribe the 5 year old that developed into you, as always being you? A different me sure...a developed me...but me all the same.

 

Please think about it carefully, and then consider the difference between that statement, and the question originally raised in the OP. I'm not meaning to sound patronising, but the reason this thread has sustained for so long is that you're misinterpreting and perhaps misunderstanding key points that have been raised so far.

 

Actually, it's indescribable for me at the moment. This has happened to me before. Something just isn't right and the conclusion just seems so obvious, yet I can't figure out how to conciously make sense of it and articulate it.

 

There is a significant point between defining what is a "being" for simple reference's sake and defining what is a "being" for morality's sake. I don't know why this is glaring at me, but it seems silly not to think of a blastocyst as a being. Downright absurd.

 

Ok, so what is a blastocyst? And don't say a blob of cells, because that's all any of us are.

[Glider]

Ok, so what is a blastocyst? And don't say a blob of cells, because that's all any of us are.

Not really. A blastocyst is a blob of around 50 undifferentiated cells. We are a highly ordered functional system of highly differentiated and specialised cells and organs. We contain a greater number of specialised cell types than a blastocyst contains cells.

[Royston]

There is a significant point between defining what is a "being" for simple reference's sake and defining what is a "being" for morality's sake. I don't know why this is glaring at me, but it seems silly not to think of a blastocyst as a being. Downright absurd.

 

Well there's a simple answer, you appear to be a determinist and you associate meaning and moral codes due to that i.e because the blastocyst was always going to be you, then it holds the same moral weight, because it turned out to be you.

 

What you need to remember, is that any given blastocyst doesn't carry the same moral values, because we can only evaluate at the time of the blastocysts existence what those moral values should be. Because we have 'evidence' (and I can't stress that enough} of the level of self awareness, we can't define a blastocyst as a being...I hope that makes sense, I'm celebrating this evening...

[AzurePhoenix]

Actually, it's just been awhile and I'm not clear on what ground we've covered and what we haven't. sorry.

one; self-awareness and sentience is an identifiable phenomenon, not an ideological construct of morality

two; the most widely accepted (and thereby valid) definition of a being is that of an entiity that possesses self-awareness

three; a blastocyst is not self-aware

four; a blastocyst cannot be a being because it is not self-aware

five; though the same traits used to define do give rise to moral concepts, morality has nothing to do with the definition itself.

six; point five is not difficult to comprehend yet you continue to fail to do so, or you simply choose to ignore it.

 

There is a significant point between defining what is a "being" for simple reference's sake and defining what is a "being" for morality's sake. I don't know why this is glaring at me, but it seems silly not to think of a blastocyst as a being. Downright absurd.

the above quote shows that you, inexplicably, refuse to acknowledge the stated points on grounds that you have failed to give any reasoning for, making claims that are completely irrational and simply nonsensical. We are telling you what the definition is. What it means. That is the definition. Under that definition, a blastocyst isn't a being. It is not your prerogative to change that definition to fit your ludicrous whims.

 

Something tells me that you will maintain this cycle until either the thread is locked, or those of us with the patience to keep at it are all dead. And thus, we will continue to have covered no ground at all.

[ParanoiA]

one; self-awareness and sentience is an identifiable phenomenon, not an ideological construct of morality

two; the most widely accepted (and thereby valid) definition of a being is that of an entiity that possesses self-awareness

three; a blastocyst is not self-aware

four; a blastocyst cannot be a being because it is not self-aware

five; though the same traits used to define do give rise to moral concepts, morality has nothing to do with the definition itself.

six; point five is not difficult to comprehend yet you continue to fail to do so, or you simply choose to ignore it.

 

One / Five / Six - Morality has nothing to do with whether or not it is a being, as I and you keep lecturing one another...

 

Two - not according to wikipedia, which I realize is not the almighty omniscient reference source, but it's enlightening. I think "being" just might well be the new "good" for philosophical conundrums.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being

Aristotle has an interesting take that sounds remarkably similar to mine...

 

Three / Four - since I like to split hairs I'll point out that it certainly isn't aware of itself in the same way as a human with a brain. A cell is a highly complex functional unit of all living organisms so I'm not so sure there isn't something there.

 

But, better yet, I'm not so sure a newborn baby is aware of itself. It's all just instinct, programming. No different than an ant. No different than pluripotent cells. Is that baby a being?

 

 

the above quote shows that you, inexplicably, refuse to acknowledge the stated points on grounds that you have failed to give any reasoning for, making claims that are completely irrational and simply nonsensical. We are telling you what the definition is. What it means. That is the definition. Under that definition, a blastocyst isn't a being. It is not your prerogative to change that definition to fit your ludicrous whims.

 

The definition is ambiguous at best. There are several bodies of thought on the matter that you have chosen to exclude from your consciousness. The ludicrous whims are coming from those intellectuals who have already made up their minds - which always reminds me of religion.

 

Something tells me that you will maintain this cycle until either the thread is locked, or those of us with the patience to keep at it are all dead. And thus, we will continue to have covered no ground at all.

 

I will maintain this cycle until I've thought it all out, critically - and I stress critically. (Geez, women are so damn pushy...)