• Relativist
    2.5k
    It occupies its own unique and distinct position in space and time. A zygote is alive. At no point does a zygote die and get replaced by another living being. If left to live a zygote can continue his life, without interruption, for upwards to one hundred years.

    Twins are individuated at the zygote level until it reproduces asexually, then there are two individuals.
    NOS4A2
    This is a tangent. I have no problem with identifying an individual identity as a series of causally-connected spatiotemporal stages. The objection I have is in defining the "natural kind" (for lack of a better term) of "individual human being". This would have to be based on a well-defined set of necessary and sufficient properties, that unambiguously identify an object as either being one of these, or not. An object that can produce multiple human beings cannot possible be said to be an individual human being, even though it is commonly in the developmental history of human beings. The same is true of blasotocysts- clusters of cells, that may produce multiple human beings at several stages.

    So my position is that an individual human being (i.e. an object of that type) is something that emerges. gradually during fetal development. I regard a properly functioning individual human being as a self-sustaining organism with certain physical and intellectual capabilities, including a sense of self. You can disagree, because there is no unequivocally correct answer. But you have no rational basis for denying me (or women) the privilege of deciding for ourselves.
  • NOS4A2
    9.2k


    This is a tangent. I have no problem with identifying an individual identity as a series of causally-connected spatiotemporal stages. The objection I have is in defining the "natural kind" (for lack of a better term) of "individual human being". This would have to be based on a well-defined set of necessary and sufficient properties, that unambiguously identify an object as either being one of these, or not. An object that can produce multiple human beings cannot possible be said to be an individual human being, even though it is commonly in the developmental history of human beings. The same is true of blasotocysts- clusters of cells, that may produce multiple human beings at several stages.

    So my position is that an individual human being (i.e. an object of that type) is something that emerges. gradually during fetal development. I regard a properly functioning individual human being as a self-sustaining organism with certain physical and intellectual capabilities, including a sense of self. You can disagree, because there is no unequivocally correct answer. But you have no rational basis for denying me (or women) the privilege of deciding for themselves.

    All objects that can produce multiple human beings are individual human beings. A mother, for instance, can do that. But this is also true of asexual reproduction. An individual amoeba, for instance, can produce another amoeba. Unfortunately (and oddly), we may have to think of one zygotic twin as the parent of the other.

    I would never deny you or other women your privileges, but your distinctions are completely arbitrary. Worse, they are inapplicable to those with developmental disabilities, those who cannot care for themselves, and those without your favored set of physical and intellectual capabilities. At any rate, the reduction of humanity and dignity to that of “material” is the name of the game for anyone who wants to end such a life.
  • Fire Ologist
    702
    I regard a properly functioning individual human being as a self-sustaining organism with certain physical and intellectual capabilities, including a sense of self.Relativist

    I absolutely agree with that. I don’t think that is enough, but “sense of self” is a good one when talking about “person”.

    The phrases “I regard” or “I recognize” have no explanatory powers here, because I recognize and I regard a human zygote as and individual human being and you seem to think I must be blind or need my powers of recognition and regard checked. The question is WHY would either of us recognize distinctions or similarities?

    A newborn baby isn’t self-sustaining. It won’t eat unless other things feed it.
    A newborn baby has no intellectual capabilities.
    A newborn baby has no sense of self.

    So is a newborn baby a person or not?
  • Fire Ologist
    702
    We can see many personal things about the baby in the picture. It looks caucasian, has light hair, etc.praxis

    We can’t use “Caucasian” to identify a person, because what about other non-Caucasian organisms? Making “caucasian” have anything to do with being a “person” sounds racist. I know you didn’t mean that, but I don’t know how referencing the race of a person tells you anything at all about why a newborn is a person but a zygote is not.

    “Light hair” - what about bald babies? What about bald adults? What about dark haired babies? Again, this provides no insight into why an adult and a baby are both persons, but a zygote is not.
  • praxis
    6.5k
    Again, this provides no insight into why an adult and a baby are both persons, but a zygote is not.Fire Ologist

    Babies and adults have qualities that match my concept of ‘person’.

    zygotebaby.jpg

    I assume by not answering that you do not recognize the image on the left as a person just as I don’t recognize it as a person.
  • Fire Ologist
    702
    I assume by not not answering that you do not recognize the image on the left as a person just as I don’t recognize it as a person.praxis

    Come on, let’s stay with you for a bit more. I don’t want us to have to talk about my crappy reasoning yet, I’d rather we get back to your crappy reasoning.

    I assume by not answering my questions you have no idea why you regard the image on the right as a person. You just do. It’s cute and cuddly. A zygote is slimey, so it can’t be a “person”. Is something like that the best we got?
  • Fire Ologist
    702
    Babies and adults have qualities that match my concept of ‘person’.praxis

    What are those qualities, besides Caucasian, and hair? If Caucasian and hair matter at all towards a definition of person, all people from India, Asia, Africa, along with zygotes, are off your list of persons.
  • Relativist
    2.5k
    All objects that can produce multiple human beings are individual human beings. A mother, for instance, can do that. But this is also true of asexual reproduction. An individual amoeba, for instance, can produce another amoeba. Unfortunately (and oddly), we may have to think of one zygotic twin as the parent of the other.NOS4A2
    You're proposing a sufficient condition, but not a necessary one. I reject this as a sufficient condition: we could theoretically produce multiple humans from each stem cell in your body. Each stem cell fits your stated condition.

    would never deny you or other women your privileges, but your distinctions are completely arbitrary. Worse, they are inapplicable to those with developmental disabilities
    I referred to a "properly functioning human being". This doesn't imply one must be proper functioning to be a human. I wasn't even trying to suggest a necessary condition; I was defining a typical human being, not excluding the atypical.

    At any rate, the reduction of humanity and dignity to that of “material” is the name of the game for anyone who wants to end such a life.
    You're reading that into what I said. I do happen to think that humans are material; the only alternative is immaterial; it's a well defined dichotomy. Nevertheless, I never said humans are nothing more than material. Being a human is absolutely something in addition to being material.
  • praxis
    6.5k
    What are those qualities, besides Caucasian, and hair?Fire Ologist

    We don’t need to go through every aspect of personhood do we?
    — praxis

    Absolutely not. Probably a bottomless pit.
    Fire Ologist

    :roll:
  • praxis
    6.5k
    I don’t want us to have to talk about my crappy reasoning yet,Fire Ologist

    I doubt waiting will improve it. I’ll just assume that, like myself, you don’t recognize the image on the left as a person.
  • Banno
    24.8k
    Let’s be careful and precise. We are philosophers here.Fire Ologist

    :rofl:
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.