Stem cells nurture damaged spine: study

[9sublime]

A child between up to the age of two often doesn't recognize itself in the mirror. If they have little understand of who they are, then what chance does a foetus have of being truely human?

 

[Coyote]

How valid? Certainly more than your uncorroborated opinion wouldn't you say?

I haven't seen anything from you to support your "uncorroborated" opinion while I provided at least some sources indicating it may not be valid. I can certainly look for more but why go to the effort until I see something from you?

Also, haven't I pointed out before that tests reveal that human children have no self awareness until they are about 18 months old? That is the entire point.

Good point.

If you are going to argue that some sort of self awareness is necessary in order to enjoy the protection of the law, you must deny that protection to born children for almost 2 years, and almost certainly for at least 1 year.

No, I don't think selfawareness is the only thing - it's part of what makes a person. Having a functioning brain - with brainwaves is part of it. Are we people if we don't have brains? Consciousness is a function of the brain. If we don't have a brain - what makes us special, or any different then any other animal?

Name a field of study in which there is no debate. Does that mean that no scientific study is valid until all scientists agree?

You put forth the mirror test as if it were a given. I merely pointed out that it isn't.

So you are saying that children who are born and enjoy the protection of the law are not really persons until they are conscious?

No - I am saying consciousness is one of several the attributes that makes one a person. I considered it the most important one but you bring up the point of very young infants having no self awareness so I must rethink this.

However, I have not yet seen anything that convinces me a blastocyst is a "person".

 

[Coyote]

I'm posting this as food for thought....even though it doesn't address stemcell research I think we have wandered a bit from that already. It raises some intersting questions.


Fetus, Humanity, Personhood: When Does a Fetus Become a Human Person with Rights
From Austin Cline


Abortion is the focus of some of the most intense social, cultural, political, religious, and ethical debates in modern American society. Some regard abortion as something people should be able to choose while others say abortion is a great evil which is destroying the moral fabric of society. Many of the debates turn on the status of the fetus: Is a fetus a person? Does a fetus have moral or legal rights? How we define a person and the fetus may decide the abortion debates.

Homo Sapiens:
The simplest definition of a person may be “a member of the species homo sapiens, the human species.” The fetus obviously has the same DNA as everyone else and can’t possibly be classified as any species other than homo sapiens, so isn’t it obviously a person? Assigning rights on the basis of species, however, merely begs the question of the nature of rights and what rights mean to us. The equation of rights with the human species is simple, but perhaps too simple.

DNA vs. Environment in Shaping a Person:
One premise in the argument that homo sapiens are the same as persons with rights is the idea who we are today was all present in a fertilized ovum because all our DNA was there. This is wrong. Much of what we are, even physical traits like fingerprints, is not determined by DNA. An embryo may or may not split into twins or more. Twins, identical or fraternal, may join during development, leading to a single person with more than one set of DNA. Environment counts for much of what we are.

Brain Activity & Interests:
Maybe we should focus on the ability to have interests: if someone is going to have a claim to a right to life, shouldn’t we first require that they have an interest in living and continuing to live? An ant has no conception of self and no interest in living, so has no right to life, but an adult human does. Where on this continuum does a fetus fall? Not until the necessary brain connections and activity exist, and that’s not until several months into a pregnancy.

Independent Life:
If someone has a claim to a right to live, shouldn’t they have some sort of independent life of their own? A fetus is only able to live because it is attached to the womb of the mother; therefore, any claim to a “right” to live must necessarily be at the expense of the woman. The same isn’t true of anyone else — at most, a person’s claim might entail support and help from the community at large. It would not, however, entail being hooked up to the circulatory system of another human.

Soul:
For many religious believers, a person has rights because they are endowed by God with a soul. It is thus the soul that makes them a person and requires that they be protected. There are different opinions, though, on when a soul appears. Some say conception, some say at “quickening,” when the fetus begins to move. The state has no authority to even declare that a soul exists, however, much less pick one religious conception of the soul and decide when it enters a human body.

Legal Persons & Legal Protections for Non-Persons:
Even if the fetus isn’t a person from a scientific or religious perspective, it could still be declared a person in a legal sense. If corporations can be treated as persons under the law, why not a fetus? Even if we decided that a fetus isn’t a person, that doesn’t necessarily answer the question of whether abortion should be illegal. Many non-persons, like animals, are protected. The state could theoretically assert an interest in protecting potential human life, even if it isn’t a person.

Does it Matter if the Fetus is a Person?:
Whether the fetus is declared a person from a scientific, religious, or legal perspective, this would not necessarily mean that abortion is wrong. A woman could assert a right to control her body such that even if the fetus is a person, it has no legal claim to use it. Could an adult claim a right to being hooked up to someone’s body? No — it might not be ethical to refuse the use of one’s body to save the life of another, but it couldn’t be forced by the law.

Abortion is Not Murder:
It is assumed that if the fetus is a person, then abortion is murder. This position is incompatible with what most people believe, even most anti-choice activists. If the fetus is a person and abortion is murder, then those involved should be treated like murderers. Almost no one says that either abortion providers or the women should go to jail for murder. Making exceptions for rape, incest, and even the mother’s life are also incompatible with the idea that abortion is murder.

Religion, Science, and the Definition of Humanity:
Many may assume that a proper definition of “person” would end debates over abortion, but reality is more complex than this simplistic assumption allows. Abortion debates involve debates about the status and rights of the fetus, but they are also about far more. It is arguable that the right to an abortion is primarily a right of a woman to control what happens to her body and that the death of the fetus, person or not, is an unavoidable consequence of choosing not to remain pregnant.

It is little wonder that many people are anti-abortion in the sense of not approving of the death of a fetus, but pro-choice because they regard the right of a woman to choose what happens to her body as fundamental and necessary. For this reason, then, anti-abortion activists in America are best described as anti-choice because the ability of women to choose is the political issue.

This doesn’t mean that the status of the fetus is completely irrelevant or that debates about whether the fetus is a “person” are uninteresting. Whether we think of the fetus as a person or not will have a significant influence on whether we think of abortion is ethical (even if we think it should remain legal) and what sorts of restrictions we think should be placed on those choosing to have an abortion. If the fetus is a person, then abortion may still be justified and outlawing abortion may be unjustified, but the fetus could still deserve protections and respect of some sort.

Respect, perhaps, is the issue which deserves much more attention than it currently receives. Many of those opposed to choice have been drawn in that direction because they believe that legalized abortion cheapens human life. Much of the rhetoric of the “culture of life” has force because there is something disturbing about the idea of treating the fetus as unworthy of respect and consideration. If the two sides could come closer together on this matter, perhaps the disagreements remaining would be less rancorous.

 

[palerider]

I'm posting this as food for thought....even though it doesn't address stemcell research I think we have wandered a bit from that already. It raises some intersting questions.

There is only one bright line there and that is the scientific classification that unborns are without question human beings. Everything else is no more than a philosophical argument. Are you prepared to have innocent human beings killed on the basis of a philosophical argument? For that matter, would you want to see a person accused of murder sentenced and executed on the basis of a philosophical argument?

 

[Coyote]

There is only one bright line there and that is the scientific classification that unborns are without question human beings. Everything else is no more than a philosophical argument. Are you prepared to have innocent human beings killed on the basis of a philosophical argument? For that matter, would you want to see a person accused of murder sentenced and executed on the basis of a philosophical argument?

Maybe I am. Why denigrate philosophy as somehow inferier to hard science? Some questions - particularly concerning ethics - can't be answered adequately by science.

What makes a human distinct from all other animal life and worthy of preserving? Can science provide an answer to that?

The very issue of crime, punishment, and the death penalty is more philosophical then scientific otherwise why aren't children punished like adults?

 

[palerider]

Maybe I am. Why denigrate philosophy as somehow inferier to hard science? Some questions - particularly concerning ethics - can't be answered adequately by science.

What makes a human distinct from all other animal life and worthy of preserving? Can science provide an answer to that?

The very issue of crime, punishment, and the death penalty is more philosophical then scientific otherwise why aren't children punished like adults?

So you are willing to see human beings killed on the basis of a philosophical argument. Human beings that you admit are human beings but claim are not persons based on such argument. Don't forget, that the idea that a person is not the same as a human being is also based on a very flimsy philosophical argument.

 

[Coyote]

So you are willing to see human beings killed on the basis of a philosophical argument.

You tell me - what makes a human a human - a person worthy of preserving?

Human beings that you admit are human beings but claim are not persons based on such argument.

Human beings that are members of the species homosapiens - that's it. By genetics only and no other attribute. What makes a blastocyst a person?

Don't forget, that the idea that a person is not the same as a human being is also based on a very flimsy philosophical argument.

It's far from flimsy because it is what drives many of our laws and it is what makes us regard human life as higher than that of any other species.

 

[palerider]

You tell me - what makes a human a human - a person worthy of preserving?

Human beings are worthy of the protection of the law because we write the laws. It is as simple as that.

Human beings that are members of the species homosapiens - that's it. By genetics only and no other attribute. What makes a blastocyst a person?

What makes any human being a person? The concept of personhood was invented to justify killing human beings before they are born. It is philosophical sophistry.

It's far from flimsy because it is what drives many of our laws and it is what makes us regard human life as higher than that of any other species.

No. According to the law, all human beings are persons. The philosophical slight of hand that attempts to say that persons and human beings are two different things came about in the 1970's. Roe is a court case that says that unborns are not persons but acknowledges that at some point they may be considered to be persons at which time, roe collapses in upon itself. But court cases aren't law. There is no law that distinguishes between human beings and persons which is really why the abortion debate exists. Had law been written that denied the right to live of human beings that are not yet born, then "we the people" would have had our say as opposed to 9 unelected, unaccountable judges making the decision in lieu of the legislative process.

 

[9sublime]

A child between up to the age of two often doesn't recognize itself in the mirror. If they have little understand of who they are, then what chance does a foetus have of being truely human?

Bump (i feel so dirty after saying bump)

 

[palerider]

Bump (i feel so dirty after saying bump)

It will be easier next time and before you know it, bump will be part of your vernacular.

We are all human beings. No matter what stage of development we are at. We don't magically become a "person" at some stage of our lives. We are what we are and the words we use to describe whatever period of our lives we are at are for our own benefit and don't represent some sort of mystical changes going on within us. The concept of personhood is nothing more than philosophical prestidigitation designed with the express intent of dehumanizing a human being so that said human being can be killed for any or no reason. We have seen it before. Human history is rife with examples of a simple word being powerful enough (in the minds of some) to justify dehumanizing entire groups or cultures. The "personhood" gambit is just one more in a long and tragic list.

 

[Coyote]

Human beings are worthy of the protection of the law because we write the laws. It is as simple as that.

The laws, as written - were not written with a blastocyst in mind.

What makes any human being a person? The concept of personhood was invented to justify killing human beings before they are born. It is philosophical sophistry.

No. According to the law, all human beings are persons. The philosophical slight of hand that attempts to say that persons and human beings are two different things came about in the 1970's. Roe is a court case that says that unborns are not persons but acknowledges that at some point they may be considered to be persons at which time, roe collapses in upon itself. But court cases aren't law. There is no law that distinguishes between human beings and persons which is really why the abortion debate exists. Had law been written that denied the right to live of human beings that are not yet born, then "we the people" would have had our say as opposed to 9 unelected, unaccountable judges making the decision in lieu of the legislative process.

That is inaccurate. The concept of "personhood" far pre-dates the whole abortion of debate. For example

Halacha (Jewish law) defines when a fetus becomes a nefesh (person). "...a baby...becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a 'partial life.' and in the case of a "feet-first" delivery, it happens when most of the fetal body is outside the mother's body.

The Catholic Church long held that it wasn't a "person" until the quickening.

The law was never written with embryos in mind.

 

[palerider]

The laws, as written - were not written with a blastocyst in mind.

To date, you haven't demonstrated that blastocysts are not human beings. The laws were written by human beings for human beings. It is philosophical slight of hand to try and make persons and human beings two different things.

That is inaccurate. The concept of "personhood" far pre-dates the whole abortion of debate. For example

Halacha (Jewish law) defines when a fetus becomes a nefesh (person). "...a baby...becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a 'partial life.' and in the case of a "feet-first" delivery, it happens when most of the fetal body is outside the mother's body.

In Hebrew, the word nefesh means spirit. Are you talking spirits again and using religious law to support your position?

The Catholic Church long held that it wasn't a "person" until the quickening.

Hebrew law and catholic doctrine?

The law was never written with embryos in mind.

The nature of our law is that if a right exists, in this case, the right to live, then that right exists for all human beings. The right can be denied, but law must be written that explicitly states which right is being denied, to whom, or which group it is being denied, and for what reason it is being denied. Since embryos are human beings, they are entitled to the same protection of the law as any other human being unless law is written that excludes them. You may not like it, but that is the nature of our legal system.

 

[Coyote]

To date, you haven't demonstrated that blastocysts are not human beings. The laws were written by human beings for human beings. It is philosophical slight of hand to try and make persons and human beings two different things.

You haven't demonstrated that blastocysts are people. It's no sleight of hand - what determines a person is not a scientific determination no matter how hard you might try and make it one. Science only determines species. Laws were written to protect people - not all life.

In Hebrew, the word nefesh means spirit. Are you talking spirits again and using religious law to support your position?
Hebrew law and catholic doctrine?

Nope, just pointing out the error of your statement: that personhood is a modern concept revolving around abortion. It isn't.

The nature of our law is that if a right exists, in this case, the right to live, then that right exists for all human beings.

No. For all persons. And what defines a person has changed through history.

The right can be denied, but law must be written that explicitly states which right is being denied, to whom, or which group it is being denied, and for what reason it is being denied. Since embryos are human beings, they are entitled to the same protection of the law as any other human being unless law is written that excludes them. You may not like it, but that is the nature of our legal system.

However embryos are not people.

Your logic doesn't work.

You use legal definitions to support your points by saying the legal definition of a "person" is a human being - yet all legal "persons" are clearly not human beings (ie they can be corporations). So that is wrong right there.

You say all persons are human beings therefore all human beings are persons.

That's a classic logical fallacy.

 

[palerider]

You haven't demonstrated that blastocysts are people. It's no sleight of hand - what determines a person is not a scientific determination no matter how hard you might try and make it one. Science only determines species. Laws were written to protect people - not all life.

It is the idea that a person is different and distinct from a human being that is needing proof here coyote. We have already established that unborns are indeed human beings.

Show me some law (law is written by legislatures) that states that human beings prior to the time of their birth are denied the protection of the 14th amendment. For that matter, show me some law that differentiates between human beings and people. Or show me some law that establishes a difference between human beings and people.

Nope, just pointing out the error of your statement: that personhood is a modern concept revolving around abortion. It isn't.

Of course you are. Spirits, religious doctrine. This is what you are using to support your position. It is the only thing you have and if you are going to use religious doctrine to support your position, then it is no more valid than a red faced bible thumper who is shouting thou shall not kill.

No. For all persons. And what defines a person has changed through history.

The law defines persons as human beings. Show me some legislated law that says that all human beings are not persons.

However embryos are not people.

Declaring that a group of human beings are not people and not deserving of the constitutional rights that all human beings have is going to require some law in order to be constitutional. Kindly bring the law here and show me or drop this invalid line of argument.

You use legal definitions to support your points by saying the legal definition of a "person" is a human being - yet all legal "persons" are clearly not human beings (ie they can be corporations). So that is wrong right there.

Are you arguing that unborns are corporate entites? If you are, then you are going to need to prove that they are the sorts of corporations that may not be viewed as persons, and if you are not, then human being is the only legal definition of person that you are left with. The logic is impeccable which is why it is so frustrating to you. If it weren't, you could have sidestepped this issue long ago.

You say all persons are human beings therefore all human beings are persons.

Show me some law that states that all human beings are not persons. If you are wanting to argue law, then you need to be prepared to show some law. If you aren't arguing the law, what is your point?

 

[Coyote]

It is the idea that a person is different and distinct from a human being that is needing proof here coyote. We have already established that unborns are indeed human beings.

Show me some law (law is written by legislatures) that states that human beings prior to the time of their birth are denied the protection of the 14th amendment. For that matter, show me some law that differentiates between human beings and people. Or show me some law that establishes a difference between human beings and people.

The laws have always been written for "persons" - and what constitutes a "person" legally has changed throughout history. "Person" did not used to mean blacks, or women, or children or other categories of people. Do you deny that?

History, law, philosophy and cultural traditions have long seperated the idea of what "constitutes" a "person" from human being. Can you point to any laws, historical sources or traditions that label a blastocyst a person? Science itself is unable to accurately define a "person" though the consensus seems to be that there needs to be a certain level of neurological development.

Are there any laws that refer to constitutional protections for "human beings"?

Of course you are. Spirits, religious doctrine. This is what you are using to support your position. It is the only thing you have and if you are going to use religious doctrine to support your position, then it is no more valid than a red faced bible thumper who is shouting thou shall not kill.

Not at all.

You stated: "What makes any human being a person? The concept of personhood was invented to justify killing human beings before they are born. It is philosophical sophistry."

I pointed out the error in your statement - in other words, the concept of personhood had nothing to do with abortion and far pre-dates the issue. Who's practicing sophistry here?

The law defines persons as human beings. Show me some legislated law that says that all human beings are not persons.

The law also defines persons as corporations. What of it?

The law didn't used to define blacks as persons. We had to add an amendment to get that.

Maybe the use of literal legal definitions to support your position is flawed?

Declaring that a group of human beings are not people and not deserving of the constitutional rights that all human beings have is going to require some law in order to be constitutional. Kindly bring the law here and show me or drop this invalid line of argument.

Not at all. Typically, constitutional amendments are required to expand the definition of what is a "person".

Are you arguing that unborns are corporate entites? If you are, then you are going to need to prove that they are the sorts of corporations that may not be viewed as persons, and if you are not, then human being is the only legal definition of person that you are left with. The logic is impeccable which is why it is so frustrating to you. If it weren't, you could have sidestepped this issue long ago.

Not at all. I'm pointing out your flaw in relying on the legal definition of a "person".

Show me some law that states that all human beings are not persons. If you are wanting to argue law, then you need to be prepared to show some law. If you aren't arguing the law, what is your point?

It's not up to me to prove that something IS NOT - in other words, that all human beings are not persons. It's up to you - who make that argument - to prove that they are "persons".

I forget the exact quote here or the person who stated it....but it goes something to this effect.

I could state that there is a teapot in orbit around the sun. But is too small to be detectable by any instruments. The burdon of proof is not on you to show that it does not exist but rather on me to show that it does.

Your rely on biology but all biology can show is that we are all members of the same species.

You rely on a literal legal definition from a legal dictionary - but that two is flawed since it also can mean a corporation and on top of that it makes a distinction between "person" and "natural person".

From a logical viewpoint - your argument is flawed because it boils down to:

All persons are human beings
Therefore all human beings are persons.

You don't have an adequate definition of a person.

You state all human beings are persons - I state not.