Hello to all,
So this shall be my first post on this forum. I want to start off by saying these questions are meant for fellow Christians mainly, but anyone against abortion can answer.
I would like to hear people's thoughts on how to possibly reply to the following points made by a Mr. "Tantalus Prime" on his blog? (The post can be found here: [What is a yellow concerto?], and the reply of Mr. Egnor can be found here ["But Tantalus, are you saying there are individuals who have more humanity than others?!" - Evolution News & Views], but I feel like the reply doesn't sufficiently answer all the objections.)
It's very long but there are several things to pay attention to because many issues arise.
I'll only include the main points, so if you want to see the full post, check out the link.
So here goes:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What is a yellow concerto?
In the discussion of abortion, Mr. Egnor has asked me to answer a single question. Before I get to that, let me be clear on two points. First, there is nothing novel in any of the arguments that either Mr. Egnor or myself put forward. A simple Google search will allow you to follow along and predict, with a great deal of accuracy, what each of us will say. So if you aren't interested in that, move along. Second, the question(s), while apparently simple, are deceptively so. Philosophers have dealt with them for centuries without reaching a consensus and writing thoroughly on such a subject requires more space than a simple blog allows. So, if you are looking for some definitive answer, you won't get it.
Mr. Egnor has asked me a single question: What is a human embryo? Now, I must stop there because this is really two questions. The first is "What is an embryo?" I hope we can safely set aside the question of what an embryo is. Let's say a group of two or more dividing cells that, in placental mammals, is between the zygotic and fetal stages. I don't believe it is the question Mr. Egnor wants answered though. That means there is something about that dangling modifier "human". That would make the second question "What is a human?" Now, perhaps I am wrong, but I believe this is the key question Mr. Egnor wants answered. If that is the question to be answered, why not simply ask that question outright? Only Mr. Egnor knows why. So let me try rephrasing the question to better capture what I believe is being asked. "Is an embryo human?" That, is better, but I'm fairly certain that embryos associated with other animals aren't to be included, only those embryos undergoing gestation in an adult female of the species Homo sapien, commonly referred to as human. So lets use the word human in its common form to distinguish what class of embryos we are discussing. "Is a human embryo human?"
Well, this can't be right. Instead of trying to prove the unborn is fully human, such a question simply assumes the proof is true. This logical fallacy is called, of course, "begging the question". I'm sure such an outcome was unintentional. Now, some will say that I have significantly altered the question. I disagree based on the potential answers offered (especially answer 5) and think that I have clarified the question to better get at what is really being asked. If I offended anyone in doing so, I apologize. Perhaps it is better to move on and look at the possible answers.
But here we run into another problem. Mr Egnor seems to use the terms "human", "human being" and "homo sapien" interchangeably. In previous posts, he has done the same with "person". Now this can't be right because while colloquially they are interchangeable, in the context of abortion discussions Tom Gilson has informed me that these mean vastly different things. I feel either Mr. Egnor has made a mistake (or I have) or that I am being set up for some rhetorical sleight of hand. But let us assume these are equivalent terms for Mr. Egnor and use his previous posts to come up with definitions and answer the questions (1). So to clarify the present definitions:
Homo sapien - an individual, from the moment of fertilization on, with genomic content common to the hairless, social great ape originating on the planet Earth and endowed with certain rights by virtue of being a member of said species (2)
Human - see Homo sapien
Person(3) - see Human
Incomplete, I know. But as I've said, space is limited. And if I break into using the colloquial forms of these words I apologize. Now, as Mr. Egnor has said that a human life begins at fertilization and that all humans have at least one right, I'd like to believe that the above definitions are somewhat representative of what he believes. If not, he is of course free to change them. So, using these definitions, the answer to the question "What is a human embryo?" becomes simple to answer. Anything which is human is both a Homo sapien and a person. Answer 5. In fact, the word embryonic becomes superfluous because, as I have tried to show, the assumption has already been made that the embryo is human. In essence it makes the question a non sequitur, like asking "What is a stellar star?" But it is illustrative of at least one thing. Since fertilization is the starting point of human life, without fertilization there is no human life. I can conceive of at least five situations in which these definitions would create an ethical dilemma:
1) Monozygotic twins - Identical twins (or triplets, etc.) arise from a single fertilization event but result in two individuals. Since life begins at fertilization and the separation resulting in twins occurs after this, this must mean that one of the twins did not arise from fertilization and is therefore not human. No doubt such a conclusion makes people uneasy. To resolve this dilemma there are a few solutions. One could concede that fertilization is not the starting point of life. Alternatively, one could maintain that fertilization does give rise to multiple lives in the sense that each cell division creates another potential life. This creates the greater problem of reconciling the fact that each adult human is made up of billions of potential lives. In fact, one could scrape one's cheek with a swab and remove several cells with the potential for life with the express intent of preventing them from reaching such potential. In fact, I just did so and, by the rationale above, performed an abortion. Of course this is ridiculous but it is the logical conclusion using the stated definitions. One potential work around is to claim that fertilization gives rise to multiple lives but that these potential lives lose their potential after a set period of time, let's say after the first six cycles of division. This of course raises even greater problems. Where did the lives go to? Were they the unfortunate victim of spontaneous abortion (aka miscarriage)? If a drug were available that would suppress the the development of monozygotic twins (not a drug that leads to the induced abortion of one but that only suppresses the splitting of one zygote into two) then wouldn't such a drug be morally equivalent to abortion? Alternatively, if possible, wouldn't forcing split eggs back together also be morally equivalent to abortion?
Here's another one. One proposed compromise to the debate on the use of federal funds for embryonic stem cells involved taking a single cell from an early ex utero embryo as a source of stem cells but allowing the remaining cells to continue dividing in preparation for implantation. Many thought such a procedure would remove any associated moral dilemma from stem cell use since the DNA unique to that individual is retained and would, assuming implantation is successful, result in the birth of that individual. Assuming that in vitro fertilization is not morally wrong (and I know Mr. Egnor opposes it, but for those who don't), those who would accept this compromise face a moral dilemma similar to that described in the previous paragraph. How is this situation different from performing an abortion on one of a pair of monozygotic twins? In both cases, the embryo is split, one part is allowed to reach its potential and the other is not. What is the difference, in this case, between the embryo removed from the petri dish and the one removed from the uterus?
2) Cloned individuals - This should be self explanatory. Since any adult individual who is cloned from non-gametic cells would bypass fertilization, they are not a human and do not have rights by virtue of belonging to our species. To allow such individuals to be human, a redefinition of the beginning of life is required.
3) Individuals with two parents of the same sex - By this I mean individuals made from the DNA of two men or two woman. This has already been done in mice and could potentially be done in humans. To allow such individuals to be human, a redefinition of the beginning of life is required.
4) Individual developing from a non-fertilized egg - I know it sounds crazy, but it is at least theoretically possible, though highly improbable. Some contend that there is at least one documented case of such an occurrence. So again, without fertilization such an individual can not be human and is not entitled to any rights.
5) Genetically altered individuals - This is the bonus situation since it doesn't involve fertilization (depending on how it is done, it could involve gene addition post-fertilization). This is commonly done in animals and could potentially be done in humans. But how do you deal with an individual who does not have the genomic sequence common to Homo sapiens? If they are not Homo sapiens, they are not human, they are not persons, and they are not entitled to rights. This raises the same issue as above. But it raises an even bigger issue.
In the other four examples, ignoring fertilization as the starting point, one could still argue that the individual is human because of their DNA. But that is not the case here. This may be a matter of the number of altered genes, but at some point the DNA would be so altered that one could not consider such an individual a Homo sapien. If they are not a Homo sapien, they are not human; and if they are not human, then they are an animal. And if they are an animal, then there is no moral dilemma with aborting them. That is a simple logical conclusion. But not because I said so; because the greatest philosopher to ever walk the face of the Earth Thomas Aquinas said so, in Summa Theologica: According to the Divine ordinance the life of animals and plants is preserved not for themselves but for man. Hence, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 20), 'by a most just ordinance of the Creator, both their life and their death are subject to our use.' ... He that kills another's ox, sins, not through killing the ox, but through injuring another man in his property. (4)
It seems that to avoid this dilemma, we must rethink what we mean by Homo sapien.
.........
Is there a fundamental change in the parts before and after fertilization? Not really, unless you count discarding the sperm tail. All the parts were there before and are there after. Adding them together didn't make any new parts. You can add an Airstream to your Ford truck, but it doesn't make it a Winnebago. Can the fertilized egg do anything the sperm and egg can't? It can divide and has all the genetic code necessary for developing an individual. But the sperm and egg themselves have undergone cell division previously and also have all the genetic code necessary to develop a human, if only in haploid form. Does fertilization occur in some privileged place in the reproductive system? No, it occurs in the same place that sperm and egg meet, so it is difficult to argue that the few hundred microns a sperm moves is of significance. Is the support system any different before and after fertilization? No, in both there is little support save for providing a pathway to the uterus. So by these criteria, one could argue that fertilization is not so different from the moments preceding fertilization. And if that is the case then we can (and some would say must) push back the beginning of life, of human life with value, to some earlier time point. There is support for this assertion. After all, if my parents had used contraception, they would have prevented me from being born. If this statement is true, which of course it is, then my unique human life and the value associated with it did not begin with fertilization but extends to some earlier time point. This, logically, would be the most conservative approach.
As I said, these issues are complicated, but I've tried to summarize them as best I can in this format. And this is the short version (9). It would be nice to live in a Manichean world. It would really make a lot of things easier. But few things are simple; most are complicated. I accept this. So does Mr. Egnor, as demonstrated by his uncertainty of the exact moment during conception he believes human life begins, and his qualification that with the right to life some restrictions may apply. I live my life with the understanding that real answers are hard to come by. To live otherwise would be unconscionable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, there you have it. Please let me know how you would respond to these points, because personally I am left wondering. Not in the sense that there is no clear answer, but just I don't know what the answer is. Number 3 and 4 are especially confusing as I am not aware of the details of how such acts would be carried out.
Thank you to all who wish to help.
-M
So this shall be my first post on this forum. I want to start off by saying these questions are meant for fellow Christians mainly, but anyone against abortion can answer.
I would like to hear people's thoughts on how to possibly reply to the following points made by a Mr. "Tantalus Prime" on his blog? (The post can be found here: [What is a yellow concerto?], and the reply of Mr. Egnor can be found here ["But Tantalus, are you saying there are individuals who have more humanity than others?!" - Evolution News & Views], but I feel like the reply doesn't sufficiently answer all the objections.)
It's very long but there are several things to pay attention to because many issues arise.
I'll only include the main points, so if you want to see the full post, check out the link.
So here goes:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What is a yellow concerto?
In the discussion of abortion, Mr. Egnor has asked me to answer a single question. Before I get to that, let me be clear on two points. First, there is nothing novel in any of the arguments that either Mr. Egnor or myself put forward. A simple Google search will allow you to follow along and predict, with a great deal of accuracy, what each of us will say. So if you aren't interested in that, move along. Second, the question(s), while apparently simple, are deceptively so. Philosophers have dealt with them for centuries without reaching a consensus and writing thoroughly on such a subject requires more space than a simple blog allows. So, if you are looking for some definitive answer, you won't get it.
Mr. Egnor has asked me a single question: What is a human embryo? Now, I must stop there because this is really two questions. The first is "What is an embryo?" I hope we can safely set aside the question of what an embryo is. Let's say a group of two or more dividing cells that, in placental mammals, is between the zygotic and fetal stages. I don't believe it is the question Mr. Egnor wants answered though. That means there is something about that dangling modifier "human". That would make the second question "What is a human?" Now, perhaps I am wrong, but I believe this is the key question Mr. Egnor wants answered. If that is the question to be answered, why not simply ask that question outright? Only Mr. Egnor knows why. So let me try rephrasing the question to better capture what I believe is being asked. "Is an embryo human?" That, is better, but I'm fairly certain that embryos associated with other animals aren't to be included, only those embryos undergoing gestation in an adult female of the species Homo sapien, commonly referred to as human. So lets use the word human in its common form to distinguish what class of embryos we are discussing. "Is a human embryo human?"
Well, this can't be right. Instead of trying to prove the unborn is fully human, such a question simply assumes the proof is true. This logical fallacy is called, of course, "begging the question". I'm sure such an outcome was unintentional. Now, some will say that I have significantly altered the question. I disagree based on the potential answers offered (especially answer 5) and think that I have clarified the question to better get at what is really being asked. If I offended anyone in doing so, I apologize. Perhaps it is better to move on and look at the possible answers.
But here we run into another problem. Mr Egnor seems to use the terms "human", "human being" and "homo sapien" interchangeably. In previous posts, he has done the same with "person". Now this can't be right because while colloquially they are interchangeable, in the context of abortion discussions Tom Gilson has informed me that these mean vastly different things. I feel either Mr. Egnor has made a mistake (or I have) or that I am being set up for some rhetorical sleight of hand. But let us assume these are equivalent terms for Mr. Egnor and use his previous posts to come up with definitions and answer the questions (1). So to clarify the present definitions:
Homo sapien - an individual, from the moment of fertilization on, with genomic content common to the hairless, social great ape originating on the planet Earth and endowed with certain rights by virtue of being a member of said species (2)
Human - see Homo sapien
Person(3) - see Human
Incomplete, I know. But as I've said, space is limited. And if I break into using the colloquial forms of these words I apologize. Now, as Mr. Egnor has said that a human life begins at fertilization and that all humans have at least one right, I'd like to believe that the above definitions are somewhat representative of what he believes. If not, he is of course free to change them. So, using these definitions, the answer to the question "What is a human embryo?" becomes simple to answer. Anything which is human is both a Homo sapien and a person. Answer 5. In fact, the word embryonic becomes superfluous because, as I have tried to show, the assumption has already been made that the embryo is human. In essence it makes the question a non sequitur, like asking "What is a stellar star?" But it is illustrative of at least one thing. Since fertilization is the starting point of human life, without fertilization there is no human life. I can conceive of at least five situations in which these definitions would create an ethical dilemma:
1) Monozygotic twins - Identical twins (or triplets, etc.) arise from a single fertilization event but result in two individuals. Since life begins at fertilization and the separation resulting in twins occurs after this, this must mean that one of the twins did not arise from fertilization and is therefore not human. No doubt such a conclusion makes people uneasy. To resolve this dilemma there are a few solutions. One could concede that fertilization is not the starting point of life. Alternatively, one could maintain that fertilization does give rise to multiple lives in the sense that each cell division creates another potential life. This creates the greater problem of reconciling the fact that each adult human is made up of billions of potential lives. In fact, one could scrape one's cheek with a swab and remove several cells with the potential for life with the express intent of preventing them from reaching such potential. In fact, I just did so and, by the rationale above, performed an abortion. Of course this is ridiculous but it is the logical conclusion using the stated definitions. One potential work around is to claim that fertilization gives rise to multiple lives but that these potential lives lose their potential after a set period of time, let's say after the first six cycles of division. This of course raises even greater problems. Where did the lives go to? Were they the unfortunate victim of spontaneous abortion (aka miscarriage)? If a drug were available that would suppress the the development of monozygotic twins (not a drug that leads to the induced abortion of one but that only suppresses the splitting of one zygote into two) then wouldn't such a drug be morally equivalent to abortion? Alternatively, if possible, wouldn't forcing split eggs back together also be morally equivalent to abortion?
Here's another one. One proposed compromise to the debate on the use of federal funds for embryonic stem cells involved taking a single cell from an early ex utero embryo as a source of stem cells but allowing the remaining cells to continue dividing in preparation for implantation. Many thought such a procedure would remove any associated moral dilemma from stem cell use since the DNA unique to that individual is retained and would, assuming implantation is successful, result in the birth of that individual. Assuming that in vitro fertilization is not morally wrong (and I know Mr. Egnor opposes it, but for those who don't), those who would accept this compromise face a moral dilemma similar to that described in the previous paragraph. How is this situation different from performing an abortion on one of a pair of monozygotic twins? In both cases, the embryo is split, one part is allowed to reach its potential and the other is not. What is the difference, in this case, between the embryo removed from the petri dish and the one removed from the uterus?
2) Cloned individuals - This should be self explanatory. Since any adult individual who is cloned from non-gametic cells would bypass fertilization, they are not a human and do not have rights by virtue of belonging to our species. To allow such individuals to be human, a redefinition of the beginning of life is required.
3) Individuals with two parents of the same sex - By this I mean individuals made from the DNA of two men or two woman. This has already been done in mice and could potentially be done in humans. To allow such individuals to be human, a redefinition of the beginning of life is required.
4) Individual developing from a non-fertilized egg - I know it sounds crazy, but it is at least theoretically possible, though highly improbable. Some contend that there is at least one documented case of such an occurrence. So again, without fertilization such an individual can not be human and is not entitled to any rights.
5) Genetically altered individuals - This is the bonus situation since it doesn't involve fertilization (depending on how it is done, it could involve gene addition post-fertilization). This is commonly done in animals and could potentially be done in humans. But how do you deal with an individual who does not have the genomic sequence common to Homo sapiens? If they are not Homo sapiens, they are not human, they are not persons, and they are not entitled to rights. This raises the same issue as above. But it raises an even bigger issue.
In the other four examples, ignoring fertilization as the starting point, one could still argue that the individual is human because of their DNA. But that is not the case here. This may be a matter of the number of altered genes, but at some point the DNA would be so altered that one could not consider such an individual a Homo sapien. If they are not a Homo sapien, they are not human; and if they are not human, then they are an animal. And if they are an animal, then there is no moral dilemma with aborting them. That is a simple logical conclusion. But not because I said so; because the greatest philosopher to ever walk the face of the Earth Thomas Aquinas said so, in Summa Theologica: According to the Divine ordinance the life of animals and plants is preserved not for themselves but for man. Hence, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 20), 'by a most just ordinance of the Creator, both their life and their death are subject to our use.' ... He that kills another's ox, sins, not through killing the ox, but through injuring another man in his property. (4)
It seems that to avoid this dilemma, we must rethink what we mean by Homo sapien.
.........
Is there a fundamental change in the parts before and after fertilization? Not really, unless you count discarding the sperm tail. All the parts were there before and are there after. Adding them together didn't make any new parts. You can add an Airstream to your Ford truck, but it doesn't make it a Winnebago. Can the fertilized egg do anything the sperm and egg can't? It can divide and has all the genetic code necessary for developing an individual. But the sperm and egg themselves have undergone cell division previously and also have all the genetic code necessary to develop a human, if only in haploid form. Does fertilization occur in some privileged place in the reproductive system? No, it occurs in the same place that sperm and egg meet, so it is difficult to argue that the few hundred microns a sperm moves is of significance. Is the support system any different before and after fertilization? No, in both there is little support save for providing a pathway to the uterus. So by these criteria, one could argue that fertilization is not so different from the moments preceding fertilization. And if that is the case then we can (and some would say must) push back the beginning of life, of human life with value, to some earlier time point. There is support for this assertion. After all, if my parents had used contraception, they would have prevented me from being born. If this statement is true, which of course it is, then my unique human life and the value associated with it did not begin with fertilization but extends to some earlier time point. This, logically, would be the most conservative approach.
As I said, these issues are complicated, but I've tried to summarize them as best I can in this format. And this is the short version (9). It would be nice to live in a Manichean world. It would really make a lot of things easier. But few things are simple; most are complicated. I accept this. So does Mr. Egnor, as demonstrated by his uncertainty of the exact moment during conception he believes human life begins, and his qualification that with the right to life some restrictions may apply. I live my life with the understanding that real answers are hard to come by. To live otherwise would be unconscionable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, there you have it. Please let me know how you would respond to these points, because personally I am left wondering. Not in the sense that there is no clear answer, but just I don't know what the answer is. Number 3 and 4 are especially confusing as I am not aware of the details of how such acts would be carried out.
Thank you to all who wish to help.
-M
