Extending rights to cells

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

So I've been thinking about abortion after a recent thread, and I realized the debate can come down to a simple question: at what point does an embryo get the "right" to stay alive?

 

In the interests of moral consistency we'd have to justify our decision, of course, rather than just saying "at x number of weeks into the pregnancy" or something. Here's three justifications for three different views:

 

1. Only those capable of feeling pain have a right to not suffer. Ideally followers of this view would determine when an embryo begins to feel pain and then disallow abortion after this point.
   
2. All "humans" do, regardless of whether they're an embryo or a 35-year-old man. This would preclude abortion.
   
3. All life does. This would preclude abortion.
   

(Note: These are all based on the view that abortion causes suffering in the embryo, or at least that it could. I can't really find justification for the argument that while an embryo might not feel pain, it is alive and deserves to live. On a related note, see #1 below.)

 

So which view do I subscribe to? Well, here are a few problems with these views:

 

1. If only those capable of pain and suffering should not have pain inflicted upon them, what makes it immoral to, say, rape an unconscious person? That person cannot suffer, and if they never find out what happened, they never will suffer from the incident. One might argue it was done without the victim's consent, but if consent is what is needed, no embryo can consent.
   
2. If all humans (i.e. organisms with a human genome) should not be killed -- what is to distinguish a human embryo of one or two cells from one of any other species? The only difference at that stage is really only the genes, and surely they do not make it any more "sacred." So should we also forbid the abortion of animals?
   
3. I can't really argue against the idea that any living thing deserves to live, except to ask for justification. Also, what of antibiotics and squashing flies?
   

So you can see I'm just talking myself out of every possibility I can think of. What's your view on the matter, and how would you answer my questions while keeping your morals consistent?

 

(Please, let's not bring religious arguments into this unless they can provide significant justification. I'm looking for justified moral arguments, not "my religion says killing is wrong." It's all about the why? I, or other moderators, will be forced to abort your posts if you veer too far into religion. And we have no ethical qualms with doing so.)

[Sisyphus]

I have a thought that it might help to go back to a more fundamental question, which is why is murder (defined as "wrongful killing") wrong? (And "because human life is sacred" is not an answer - why is it "sacred?") If you can answer that clearly, it might help decide at what point in development it becomes "wrong" to intentionally abort. What harm is done by condoning murder, and when does condoning abortion cause that same harm? Or something along those lines.

 

For myself, I'm pretty much resigned to letting it be a permanent grey area (which is, I guess, itself a moral stance). It isn't something that can be "figured out," because there is no inherently correct answer. (There is no such thing as a "natural right," except in the sense that human beings naturally demand rights for themselves.) And, in my opinion, there's no non-arbitrary point at which the "human being" begins, since life is a continuous, messy, and indistinct process. Not even conception, as I have a hard time seeing a zygote the moment after fertilization as somehow morally distinct from a separate sperm and egg the moment before. If that is the all or nothing that makes a human being, then being a human being doesn't mean much of anything. Personally, I think we're better than that.

[SkepticLance]

Of course, you are asking for opinions in an area where everything is subjective and no scientific testing will provide answers - only opinion.

 

I am not religious and religious dogma has no part in my opinions. My subjective and personal opinion is that the real question is : When does an embryo become human? This is based on the general observation that, in many circumstances, our culture considers it OK to kill animals, but not humans. Actually, in some circumstances our culture considers it OK to kill humans also - eg war - but I do not happily go along with that.

 

So my answer is that it is OK to kill an embryo any time before it becomes human. So what is human? I believe it is based on the brain. Shape is nothing. A plastic doll has the shape. However, we can plot the development of the brain, and there is a time when the brain gets large enough to arouse the possibility that the embryo is now getting somewhat human. When that happens, we should call the killing of the embryo wrong.

 

When is that? I do not want to give a definitive answer, since I am not an expert in the field. My guess is about half way through normal pregnancy, but others may dispute that, with more expertise than I have.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Is it the mere fact that it has a brain that makes it a human, or the fact that the brain grants it the ability to feel and percieve?

[ydoaPs]

I recommend reading "Rethinking Life and Death" by Peter Singer.

[Mr Skeptic]

A tough question, and I doubt there is a good answer.

 

So I've been thinking about abortion after a recent thread, and I realized the debate can come down to a simple question: at what point does an embryo get the "right" to stay alive?

 

I'd go for when it has a brain of sufficient complexity. If there is any way to tell, I'd say when it first becomes conscious. And no, that does not extend to conscious animals. Why not? I'll think about it...

 

Only those capable of feeling pain have a right to not suffer.

 

What about these folks: Congenital_insensitivity_to_pain_with_anhidrosis? They don't feel pain, but still have more rights than animals which can feel pain. They can still suffer though. And do. While you may think it fun not to feel pain, they can do massive damage to their bodies without knowing it.

 

On the other hand, we instinctively do not like pain nor suffering due to empathy, so it does seem reasonable to say that, all else being equal we have a moral obligation to try to reduce suffering. But there is a deeper level of suffering than simply pain.

 

All "humans" do, regardless of whether they're an embryo or a 35-year-old man. This would preclude abortion.

 

I slightly subscribe to this view. Of course the million dollar question then is, what is a human? And the reason I don't completely subscribe to this view is that I believe in the possibility of non-human persons, and that they must have some rights.

 

All life does. This would preclude abortion.

 

Nope. Anything I eat has the right to be digested by me, and anything that tries to feed off of me is in danger of getting killed. I would not even spare my own cells (cancer), though I would spare and even go out of my way to help another human. (I can't get pregnant, but I will donate blood).

 

So you can see I'm just talking myself out of every possibility I can think of. What's your view on the matter, and how would you answer my questions while keeping your morals consistent?

 

I'd agree with Sysiphus that this is likely to be a permanent gray area. As a general rule, the more similar to me something is, the more rights it has.

 

(Please, let's not bring religious arguments into this unless they can provide significant justification. I'm looking for justified moral arguments, not "my religion says killing is wrong." It's all about the why? I, or other moderators, will be forced to abort your posts if you veer too far into religion. And we have no ethical qualms with doing so.)

 

As probably the only one here who has read the Bible cover to cover, I'll try to provide some religious perspective. (Obviously, for the non-religious, this matters mostly because of the Bible's influence, not its inherent truth. Still, "what others think" is an aspect of morality and more so of law.). First of all, the Bible doesn't actually go out and say when life begins. The more notable points are "before the world began", "at conception", and "at birth". Most churches decide that life starts at conception, but I have not seen any Biblical justification for that. There is a passage in Exodus 21:22-25 that seems to grant an unborn child equivalent rights to adults, in as much as you shouldn't hit a pregnant woman (also one of the "eye for an eye" punishments, so I don't know if that applies before the fetus has eyes). In Bible times, women wanted to have as many children as possible, so unsurprisingly, I saw no laws regarding abortion. Also in Bible times, children had some rights but were somewhat regarded as property of their parents, even after birth and could eg be sold as (temporary) slaves. Not sure when they got full rights.

 

Anyhow, from what the Bible says, an fetus has some right to life (no punching pregnant women), a child has some more rights, and an adult even more rights. This seems pretty much in line with how things currently are. As to the "life begins at conception" idea, despite its preponderance among religious folks, it does not seem to be a Biblical truth. So when you run into one of these folks, ask them to find where in their big book it says life starts at conception.

 

Anyhow, I thought I should provide some perspective on that, but don't particularly feel like discussing it more than that. If it was inappropriate, move/delete as needed.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Is it the mere fact that it has a brain that makes it a human, or the fact that the brain grants it the ability to feel and percieve?

 

There is some quality of being a person that is important. A brain is necessary for that, but of course is not sufficient.

Edited March 10, 2009 by Mr Skeptic
Consecutive posts merged.

[SkepticLance]

Believe it or not, I have also read the bible cover to cover, but that was a long time ago, and I am now a total non believer, so I am unlikely to do it again.

 

I have thought a lot about what makes a human, and the only thing that makes sense to me is the human brain. Any person who retains a fully functioning brain is human. We have cases where brain dead people have their life support systems switched off, or even are permitted to starve to death. I see no problem with that, though it might be emotionally distasteful to actually do it. Once the brain is gone, so is the humanity.

 

Most abortions are carried out at a time when the foetus brain is no bigger than that of an earthworm. I regard that abortion as a crime about equivalent to the crime of stepping on an earthworm.

 

I am aware of the argument that you are killing a potential human. However, if you take that argument to its logical extreme, you will force women to be perpetually pregnant from puberty to menopause, for otherwise they are denying life to potential humans. An obvious absurdity.

[iNow]

I, too, have read the bible cover to cover, but that's not really all that relevant to the actual question posed in the OP.

 

 

I'd give it until about the 12th week, since this is when EEG movements occur. Any neural activity prior to that is generally originated in the spine, or is at least more reflexive responses to growing synaptic connections. 12 weeks is also roughly when the fetus begins drinking amniotic fluid for hydration and nutrition. That's when one really needs to question the impact to the developing organism within the woman.

 

So, my arbitrary opinion on this is 12 weeks and prior = ok. After 12 weeks to be highly discouraged, but contingent on actual circumstances.

 

 

One caveat, there are a great number of 6-12 year olds that I wish had been aborted, and I frequently find myself willing to assist in a post-natal termination of some of those booger eating mutants I see at the mall.

[Mr Skeptic]

Wow, I'm surprised to see so many of you read the Bible cover to cover. Now I wonder how many Christians have even opened the Origin of Species /tangent

 

Anyhow, it seems we all agree that the brain and implications thereof is a central part of this. But I think we still need to distinguish from animals that have brains. One way to do this is the argument about potential: humans have potential to become smarter than any other animal (as noted by SkepticLance, a dangerous position). Another is the simple matter of belonging to our species, but that seems a little unsatisfactory.

 

I think it is a bad idea to have an arbitrary cut-off where suddenly a fetus has a whole bunch of rights where the second before it did not. Human development is a continuous process. I like iNow's idea that past the ~12th week better and better reasons be required for an abortion to be allowed. I'd also say that there is some cutoff, before birth, where abortion should not be allowed except to save the mother's life. Before birth, babies can suck their thumb, listen to music, and generally be alive and literally kicking.

 

Cap'n, can we include discussion of non-fetal cells? What rights do the cells in my body have, and where do those rights come from? IMO, my cells are property of me (where "me" is a pattern in my brain), to do with as I please, and others do not have the right to damage them since they are my property. Were my brain to die, so would any rights my other cells have IMO.

[john5746]

So I've been thinking about abortion after a recent thread, and I realized the debate can come down to a simple question: at what point does an embryo get the "right" to stay alive?

 

IMO, the embryo's ability to live only exists due to the woman. As long as the embryo is in the womb, the woman has the right to abort. Maybe there are practical reasons, such as physical or emotional danger to the woman that we decide not to abort at a certain stage, not sure. But once the baby is out, it is a citizen with full rights.

 

As for life itself, I think suffering of the individual is not really the point, since we know that one can kill without inflicting any lasting pain. But, we do not want to live in a society where it is common to be killed or have loved ones killed at any moment - that would be hell. Can we say the same of women getting abortions? Does that really cause so much pain and grief for third parties? Not as much as forcing women to have the babies or get shady abortions, IMO.

[Sisyphus]

(Just to pile on, I have also read the Bible from cover to cover, although never as a believer. It was in an academic setting, in the context of a study of the history of philosophy.)

[Dudde]

I like John and iNow's ideas - John because I'm of the same philosophy generally, that as long as it's in the womb to a certain point it should be the woman's choice, but iNow makes a good point with 12 weeks being where the EEG activity starts to pick up and it starts nourishing itself.

 

Before that point, I would define what's in the womb to be an advanced growth, not a person per se.

 

not that it's relevant to discussion, but I've read quite a bit of the bible, and have involved myself in debates with the religious community for years:D

[iNow]

And I've also read Origin from cover to cover. Did it on a road trip with my mom and step dad when I was about 17.

 

I also want to be clear that after 12 weeks I still don't think it should be illegal to abort the fetus, only that it be discouraged and based on circumstances. I feel that it's still up to the woman and the doctor to make that final and emotionally difficult decision, even post 12 weeks.

[YT2095]

I don`t see it being anything to do with Rights to cells, but rather the Implications it has or a situation they are involved in.

anymore than giving rights to Paper because some Very important iriplaceable documents happen to be paper as well.

 

"cell rights" is borderline strawman IMO.