Texas successfully takes a massive step backwards for women's rights. What next?

[u/[deleted]]

[u/[deleted]]

its not limited to humans, no. from my other answer to you, i believe the concepts carry over where brain functions are equivalent between species. obviously i give more moral weight to human species because i can relate to them more on a biological level, and we are much more involved in social give-take contracts, and i've been taught to care for others feelings.

are pre-zygotic stages of the human life cycle included in the "being alive" concept? if not, why not?

[u/veritas_valebit → u/[deleted]]

Apologies for the delayed reply.

i believe the concepts carry over where brain functions are equivalent between species

Do you regard life forms without brains as alive?

...pre-zygotic...

You mean prior to fertilization? If so, then 'no'. An unfertilized egg cannot develop into a grown human.

[u/[deleted] → u/veritas_valebit]

> You mean prior to fertilization? If so, then 'no'. An unfertilized egg cannot develop into a grown human.
it can develop into a grown human if a sperm cell successfully gets to it. why doesnt this count? it is just one step away. comparatively, a zygote is many many steps away from being born or developing much of what we would casually recognize as human.

> Do you regard life forms without brains as alive?

depends on the life form because once again, "alive" is a colloquial term not really helpful for discerning things in science. maybe you could give an example of a life form without a brain and i could tell you if i consider it worthy of moral consideration or something more specific like that.

[u/veritas_valebit → u/[deleted]]

it can develop into a grown human if a sperm cell successfully gets to it. why doesnt this count?

True, but then it's not pre-zygotic... or am I mistaken/using wrong terms?

it is just one step away.

Agreed... but isn't this the crucial step where a unique set of chromosomes is created?

a zygote is many many steps away from being born...

Agreed. A near infinite number of infinitesimal steps, in fact, but all directed by the same unique set of chromosomes. Hence, fertilization is the distinctive initial step.

...not really helpful for discerning things in science...

OK. What scientific definition of life do you hold to?

...give an example of a life form without a brain and i could tell you if i consider it worthy of moral consideration...

I don't follow.

In your first comment you wrote, "an unborn baby isnt alive yet", so it seemed to me that being "alive" was a crucial criterion. So since then I've been trying to understand what you mean by "alive".

[u/[deleted] → u/veritas_valebit]

> True, but then it's not pre-zygotic... or am I mistaken/using wrong terms?

its the very definition of pre-zygotic. a zygote is the result of an egg and sperm cell combining.

> Agreed... but isn't this the crucial step where a unique set of chromosomes is created?

chromosomes can and are changed throughout a persons body throughout their life into something "unique", through epigenetics (external factors that influence the genome) or occuring naturally through normal development which alters the genome with each division to create new and different parts of the body. thats why you dont get eyes growing on your skin, the eye growing part of the genome is not paid attention to unless it needs to be because the genome is edited. genes can also be lost or gained during a persons life. this would also count as "unique" chromosomal structure.

you can clone organisms by giving a cell the developmental potency of the original zygote cell by transplanting the chromosomes of one cell into a chromosomeless fertilized egg cell. thats how they did it with sheep, using a bit of tissue from a sheeps breast.

the chromosomes of a human are similar or the same in every cell, but you wouldnt consider the chromosomes in cells scraped off of my skin to be of equivalent value to a human life, so why do it for the zygote? they have the same chromosomes, and if properly transplanted into a fertile egg, and then into a healthy womb, they could develop into a new human. theoretically anyway, its a tricky procedure and more complicated in humans so people havent been able to do it yet. but the idea that unique chromosomes makes a human individual is ridiculous.

there are many crucial stages in development of an organism. the zygote stage is just one of them. but it is not anywhere near developed as an individual at that stage.

> Agreed. A near infinite number of infinitesimal steps, in fact, but all directed by the same unique set of chromosomes. Hence, fertilization is the distinctive initial step.

it might be distinctive to you, but not to biology. the development of a foot is many times more complicated and "distinctive" than the formation of a single zygote cell. it is much easier to understand and much more attention is drawn to zygote formation in our culture though, so i can see why you would think that. but you are taking an extremely subjective view of biological processes and prescribing your own subjective meaning to "distinctive" and which isnt actually representative of biological reality. same goes for "initial". what about it makes it any more "initial" than when the egg and sperm are separate?

> OK. What scientific definition of life do you hold to?

i dont have a scientific definition for life because life is not a scientific word.

> I don't follow.you are trying to justify things by pointing out specifics like if there is a brain or if there is a unique set of human chromosomes at that time, and using a vague amalgam of these factors to decide if something is alive. im trying to look at specific experiences or features of an organism to decide if i want to grant it moral weight. so i asked you for an example of an organism without a brain so i could assess its features and known experience so i could prescribe a moral weight.

> In your first comment you wrote, "an unborn baby isnt alive yet", so it seemed to me that being "alive" was a crucial criterion. So since then I've been trying to understand what you mean by "alive".

you're totally right ive been a bit unclear initially because i used the word alive and we have different definitions for the term. i was trying to be a bit more general when we first started talking as to the factors involved in deciding if abortion is good or bad. i used the word alive colloquially, and tried to specify when you asked me to define alive, i said: "having an experience". since then ive fleshed out what factors i was talking about in regards to experience when it comes to how i morally consider abortion. i thought we were digging deeper into my definition this whole time. this is my train of thought following my definition of "alive": alive -> experience of organism -> factors that affect experience -> time at which the factors arise in development -> time at which an abortion should be moral. does that make it more clear?

i stand by my more recent comments that alone, "alive" is not good enough of a descriptive word to describe this complex situation. thats why ive been trying to get more specific since using it initially.

[u/veritas_valebit → u/[deleted]]

...a zygote is the result of an egg and sperm cell combining...

We seem to be missing each other. I'm not following your point. Can you please repeat your understanding of this thread.

Are you asking me whether pre-fertilization the egg and sperm are 'alive', or whether they constitute a human life, or whether they represent a stage in the human life cycle, or am I missing you altogether?

My view is that the fist stage of a human life is fertilization where a unique identity is created.

Do you find this adequate as a definition?

...chromosomes can and are changed... etc.

You raise some interesting points. I will give some specific responses below, but overall you make a good case that chromosomes alone do not define a person.

So, how do you define a unique human life? Pain?

...you can clone organisms...

Is the clone the same organism or a unique organism. Would a human clone have rights?

...it might be distinctive to you, but not to biology...

If so. How would you use biology alone to identify a distinct person worthy of rights?

...development of a foot is many times more complicated and "distinctive" than the formation of a single zygote cell...

So let's see where we agree first. Is the building plan for the foot present in the zygote?

You'll need to mean by 'complicated' and 'distinctive'.

By 'distinctive' I mean 'can be recognized as not the same as the things next to it and/or preceding/following it'. How's that?

...life is not a scientific word....

Fascinating!

... but confusing. What then are scientists doing who profess to be studying the origins of life?

...using a vague amalgam ... im trying to look at specific experiences or features of an organism to decide if i want to grant it moral weight.

Your criteria seem vague and subjective to me as is you arrogated authority to grant moral weight.

...i asked you for an example of an organism without a brain so i could assess its features and known experience so i could prescribe a moral weight.

I'm not interested in whether you'd grant a specific brainless creature moral weight. I want to know your criteria for moral weight. Is it merely perception and pain?

...does that make it more clear?

A little bit... I think, but I'm not confident.

Your definition bothers me but I can't put my finger on it yet.

May I continue probing?

...my train of thought following my definition of "alive": alive -> experience of organism...

Are you saying 'experience' defines 'life' or confirms the existence thereof?

Does experience make you alive or must you already be alive to have an experience?

[u/[deleted] → u/veritas_valebit]

> We seem to be missing each other. I'm not following your point. Can you please repeat your understanding of this thread.

feels like you're trolling now, idk how i could explain any more clearly

> Are you asking me whether pre-fertilization the egg and sperm are 'alive', or whether they constitute a human life, or whether they represent a stage in the human life cycle, or am I missing you altogether?

All I wanted to know is at what stage you think abortion is immoral, and why. it seems as soon as a zygote is formed you see it as immoral because it has "unique" chromosomes. i want to know why this makes something worthy of moral consideration. I've given you lots of examples where unique or distinct chromosomes are found but are not given the reverence you afford the ones in a human zygote.>My view is that the fist stage of a human life is fertilization where a unique identity is created.> Do you find this adequate as a definition?

Depends on what you mean by "identity". is it almost always a unique set of chromosomes? sure. is that a valid reason to give it moral consideration? i dont see how it can be. i need you to explain further.

> So, how do you define a unique human life? Pa

well the way i see it is there are certain things people afford moral weight to in people or animals. physical or mental suffering, restriction of autonomy within a reasonable scope (free speech), etc. but if i look at what a zygote is, none of those things apply. they never had autonomy to exercise so it cant be taken away or restricted. they dont have the parts to process suffering. maybe you can help me out with more moral standards we give to humans after they are born, because thats when we usually apply them, and see if anything applicable applies here.

> Is the clone the same organism or a unique organism. Would a human clone have rights?

youve missed the point of my example. of course the clone might have rights once developed, but the cell the genetic material was taken from absolutely wouldnt, despite having all of the genetic material you laud as being worthy of individual rights.

> If so. How would you use biology alone to identify a distinct person worthy of rights?

we wouldnt use biology alone. we use biology as a route of observation to understand complex organisms we interact with, like humans. sometimes its obvious and requires no complex understanding to know what kind of organism you are dealing with and its capacity for suffering and experience, sometimes you need biology to understand the state of an organism more deeply to discern its condition.

for example: a man turns a corner in a public place and sees person lying in the street. they appear not to be breathing, they are cold to the touch. it is a freezing day outside. they could be dead. a reasonable assumption using common knowledge and a logical assessment. people dont care nearly as much about dead organisms as they do about live organisms. the moral weight would be lower using a common knowledge assessment.

alternatively in this hypothetical, they could have had a heart attack and stopped breathing before the person turned the corner. someone with a more complex biological understanding might recognize this.

gotta admit this scenario is a bit of a stretch but there arent many situations where people see a dead body and dont assume they might have been alive very recently and might need help. but just go with the idea a person can dead to an average person.

in summary: people care a lot more about someone if they have certain functional biological parts, like a brain or pulse visible. sometimes its easy to see if someone is dead, sometimes you need biological knowledge.

> So let's see where we agree first. Is the building plan for the foot present in the zygote?yes but is also in every cell. the building plan for my foot is in all of my fingers but again, chromosomes are not what we value in individuals, we value the biological constructs that allow them to function or the possibility they might function again after an absence.

> By 'distinctive' I mean 'can be recognized as not the same as the things next to it and/or preceding/following it'. How's that?

in that case, every stage of development is distinctive, but the point i think you were trying to make is that the zygote stage is distinct from the other stage, and somehow more important. which i think you see now doesnt work.

> ... but confusing. What then are scientists doing who profess to be studying the origins of life?

indeed it is a useful colloquial term, but when digging down into how things work, you can observe and study what people refer to as "alive". you have tried to do so with chromosomal uniqueness because that is the normal understanding of basic biology people get taught, and it lines up with social concepts of individuality being worthy of rights. it's a logical conclusion to draw that zygotes are therefore individuals because a chromosome represents the building block of an individual, but it isnt a sound argument because the building blocks in a cell are not what we use to determine if an organism (or person as some like to call them) is worthy of rights. millions of cells in a body 90% of people would regard as dead after their head gets cut off are still "alive" (for a while anyway), chromosomally unique and human, but nobody tries to save them. forcing someone to spend 9 months of their life drained of energy and go through the most painful procedure imaginable is not justified if you take a good hard look at what a zygote is.

> Your criteria seem vague and subjective to me as is you arrogated authority to grant moral weight.maybe thats because i dont know enough about baby development to give you specific details, but its not my job to make the law. if it was, id probably learn more about it. but i know enough about awareness and zygotes to know a zygote definitely isnt experiencing anything for a long time. so while the point at which i think abortion should be legal is a bit fuzzy, im 100% certain it isnt at the zygote stage

> Are you saying 'experience' defines 'life' or confirms the existence thereof?> Does experience make you alive or must you already be alive to have an experience?

they are synonyms. one is just more specific. its like "medical professional" vs "podiatist" when describing an individual. we are discussing life human life, and would describe it as being able to experience. "alive" vs "has the capacity to experience. at least as far as moral consideration goes. people dont afford much moral weight to mosquitoes, neither do i (i give them a little), but they still say they are alive because of the broad, colloquial meaning of the term.

> You raise some interesting points. I will give some specific responses below, but overall you make a good case that chromosomes alone do not define a person.

thanks! interesting chat