IF and IF Terri Schiavo is in a pvs, those cases take medical dollars that could be used to save the lives of people who aren't in a pvs.

My living will provides for no feeding tube in case of pvs. I'm confident of the Christianity, ethics and morality of that position.

While Terri Schiavo is techincally not dead, it is debatable as to she alive she is. Cognative function, personality, and other qualities that make human beings unique from each other and different from vegitables left Schiavo many years ago.

In most cases such as this, when there is no living will, the family decides if artificial means (breathing machines, feeding tubes) etc, are to be used to sustain the basic functions of the body. Different people have different feelings about this, so decisions vary.

But in this case, the family disagrees. Terri Schiavo's husband wants to allow his wife to pass away naturally, in accordance to what he claims would be her wishes, while her parents want to sustain her body in it's present state indefinately.

On this board we've discussesed at depth the meaning of marriage. One of the basic tennents of marriage is that you give to your spouse the power to make personal medical decisions for you if you are incapacitated and unable to make them yourself. So for people like Terri Schiavo who are unable to make these decisions for themselves, who does make these decisions? The persons spouse, other immediate family, or the Federal Government?

Joel said, "IF and IF Terri Schiavo is in a pvs, those cases take medical dollars that could be used to save the lives of people who aren't in a pvs."

Well, not knowing the financial aspects of this case, it's hard to say whether the cost of keeping here alive is prohibitively high. I'm not sure where that money will come from, other than the malpractice money. But I think this is a novel argument - most people have focused on her quality of life, not on the monetary expense of caring for her.

---

Dancar,

"While Terri Schiavo is techincally not dead, it is debatable as to she alive she is."

Better to err on the side of caution, no?

"In most cases such as this, when there is no living will, the family decides if artificial means (breathing machines, feeding tubes) etc, are to be used to sustain the basic functions of the body. ...Terri Schiavo's husband wants to allow his wife to pass away naturally"

If she were brain dead, and required a ventilator and/or other machinery to keep her alive, this position might have more force. But a feeding tube just means she can't swallow - lot's of people use them, though perhaps not so many use them indefinitely. But, it is possible that physical therapy would enable her to learn to swallow. Yet that hasn't been tried.

What do you mean, "pass away naturally". There are all kinds of people, from infants to bedridden people, who require care. All of them would die "naturally" if we withheld food and nutrition from them.

"So for people like Terri Schiavo who are unable to make these decisions for themselves, who does make these decisions? The persons spouse, other immediate family, or the Federal Government?"

Yes, that is the issue in this case. It appears that Florida law was not followed properly in her case. It also appears that her husband has a conflict of interest, and so should not be the sole advocate for her interests. Read the Nat Hentoff piece on Who Decides? that I linked to in one of the other Schiavo-related posts.

Every spouse has a conflict of interest like the one Hentoff points out, but that doesn't mean spouses can't make this kind of intimiate decision that only a spouse can make. That Mr. Schiavo is not a model husband doesn't mean his rights are any less important or shouldn't be respected and that right includes making end-of-life and medical decisions for his wife.

This isn't the government killing anyone. To say that it shows a shockingly naive understanding of law. This is the court allowing individiuals to make decisions that are guaranteed by marriage. No government official is making the decision.

it's hard to say whether the cost of keeping here alive is prohibitively high.

It's costing about $80,000 a month. I personally think that is prohibitively high, considering it is being paid in part by social security disability benefits and medicare. (The trust fund is all but gone). There are a lot of people who aren't in vegetative states that could be benefitting.

I think Michael Schiavo is a scumbag, and I feel very bad for her parents; they want to believe that their interactions with her over the past ten years have been full of meaning and not just for them, that she really has been alive and functioning. But the harsh reality of the situation is that most of the medical evidence points to her being in PVS. It's like parents who wait twenty years for their missing child to return; no, you don't want to have to tell them she's never coming back. But if it costs close to $1 million dollars a year to keep up their false hope?

Dancar: "One of the basic tennents of marriage is that you give to your spouse the power to make personal medical decisions for you if you are incapacitated and unable to make them yourself."

ResIpsa: "This is the court allowing individiuals to make decisions that are guaranteed by marriage."

How malleable marriage is these days! I frequently prepare medical powers of attorney and directives to physicians (aka living wills), yet I've never heard of this basic tenet or guarantee that your spouse can make medical decisions for you while you're married.

I thought we had an enormous right to privacy that allowed women to kill their babies without the father's consent or even notification. Now I learn that a fundamental feature of marriage is the ability to make medical decisions for your spouse.

Questions about life-support situations are often hard. There are complex issues to be considered. What fascinates me about the Schiavo case is the intense desire of those who want to see her killed. Questions and details are irrelevant. Arguments contradict each other or are simply nonsensical, as with this newly discovered fundamental feature of marriage. But underlying all the noise is the stern insistence that this woman must die—if not for this reason then for some other reason that we’ll think of eventually.

It’s an emotional issue. I don’t claim to understand it, but the concern is obviously not rational.

The objection is not that it costs too much; by now I’m sure that we could find private sources to fund her health care. The objection is not that she expressly chose death over a painful and hopeless life; specific legal documents are available to express that kind of wish, and apparently she didn’t sign them. The objection is not based on federalism or the finality of court judgments; the Clinton Justice Department had no scruples about taking a second swipe at the policemen who arrested Rodney King after a state-court jury “got it wrong.”

Why are they so eager for Terry Schiavo to die? What monstrous appetite will her death sate? What dark god do they serve by starving her? I read the words of my fellow Americans, and I can’t understand them.

"But the harsh reality of the situation is that most of the medical evidence points to her being in PVS."

I think a large part of the legal problem here is that this finding of fact was made a long time ago, and all the subsequent legal proceedings have basically taken that finding at face value. But from everything I've seen there are very legitimate questions surrounding this finding.

To echo what Ben said, the moral issue here is summed up by the following quote from a 2003 article by Sydney Smith on the case:

So little and so much has changed in the past ten years. Our science is no closer to understanding consciousness, but our society is more confident that those living in altered forms of it are closer to death than to life. In the era of Quinlan and Cruzan, the burden of proof lay on those who would deny basic care to the severely cognitively impaired. Today, the burden of proof is on those who would continue it. If that isn't a slide down the slippery slope, what is?

The state manifestly is killing her - a court ordered that her feeding tube be removed. The question is, why aren't we giving her the benefit of the doubt that we give to convicted killers?

The Smith article is here: http://www.techcentralstation.com/120403B.html

"There are a lot of people who aren't in vegetative states that could be benefitting."

But would they, in fact, receive any money that they aren't now, if Schiavo is killed?

Yes, that is the issue in this case. It appears that Florida law was not followed properly in her case. It also appears that her husband has a conflict of interest, and so should not be the sole advocate for her interests. Read the Nat Hentoff piece on Who Decides? that I linked to in one of the other Schiavo-related posts.

Rather than read posts and pundits, why not read the court documents themselves. They should provide better insight than fifth-party speculation:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf

A few things become clear. One, it was recognized by the courts that Michael Schiavo had a conflict of interest. In fact, Michael Schiavo did not ask to have her feeding tube removed; he specifically asked the court to decide. So to say he was trying to act as the sole advocate of her interests is false.

It is also clear that her parents' testimonies to her intent are not nearly as credible as her husband and brother-in-law's.

But the only reason the state is involved is because the Schindler's invited them in by contesting Mr. Schiavo's decision, which was an expression of his wife's interest.

And the only reason the federal government is involved is because the Schindlers, who have lost on every level of the judicial system, convinced Congress they had nothing better to do than bet themselves involved in an issue which is neither their business or within their jurisdiction.

The reason we give convicted killers more due process is because it is the state, and the state alone, which has ordered the person's execution. Maybe the general callousness on the right for moral concerns about the death penalty prevent people from understand the significant differences.

Maybe the federal government can have federal agents with rifles and fatigues invade the hospice and remove her at gunpoint? That's what they did with Elian. As I recall, the courts had already decided that he could stay. The feds just ignored them.

Here's the weirdest part of Terri's case, the most patently irrational part: Why does she have to starve to death? Why can't they just give her a shot of morphine? We don't kill stray dogs or convicted murderers as cruelly as they're killing her. That's the piece that convinces me that there must be some kind of religious sentiment on the left that demands her death.

The reasonable liberal view in these kinds of cases is that it's compassionate to allow those who will die soon to avoid unnecessarily painful deaths. Everyone agrees with that, up to some point. Fear of pain is why most people sign directives to physicians asking that their doctors to withhold life support in hopeless cases. A rational argument from that viewpoint would be: Don't make her starve; let us kill her painlessly with an overdose of morphine.

Whether you value life or whether you value alleviating pain, what they're doing now is wrong. The only people who I can imagine supporting her starvation are those who value death for its own sake, those who find some pleasure in knowing that she will die, those who want to see death triumph over life.

Since she feels no little pain and any discomfort she feels because of the removal of the feeding tube is ameliorated by just the kind of medication you are suggesting, I am not sure what the issue is.

Here's the weirdest part of Terri's case, the most patently irrational part: Why does she have to starve to death? Why can't they just give her a shot of morphine?

Because that would be assisted suicide and some people raise a stink about stuff like that. She does not have the right to kill herself; she only has the right to refuse medical treatment. Due to the extreme invasive nature of the feeding tube, it is considered medical treatment.

You people are amazing. Don't you know when you're being tested? DO NOT FAIL THIS TEST!

What test? Where? When? Do I need a Number 2 pencil?

"What test? Where? When? Do I need a Number 2 pencil?"

No, Res. Just a preference for life over death.

So can I assume your concern about life over death extends to opposition to the death penalty, Ben?

No, Res. I see a difference between cold-blooded killers and people who get sick. Maybe that's too subtle of a moral distinction for you to notice, but it's pretty clear to me.

As I imagined, the"culture of life" does have limits for you and a "preference for life over death" also ends at some point.

So, if a husband--who knows his wife's desires and wishes--decides to not provide nutrition to someone in PVS, that's morally wrong. But if twelve jurors, guided by the prejudices and the flaws of the justice system, decide to execute a perfectly healthy individual, that's not immoral??? Very interesting.

It's interesting to read the following comments back to back.

Michael: "In fact, Michael Schiavo did not ask to have her feeding tube removed; he specifically asked the court to decide."

ResIpsa: "The reason we give convicted killers more due process is because it is the state, and the state alone, which has ordered the person's execution."

What was it Ben said about facts not mattering?

Maybe because Ben has misstated the facts. Michael Schiavo went to the court only because of his ongoing conflicts with the parents. He asked the court for permission to remove the feeding tube, which was expected as her guardian.

That's MILES AND MILES away from the state killing someone.

I'd be willing to trade my support for capital punishment, in exchange for your support of abortion rights. So far, i've had exactly zero takers on that offer... there's just something too irresistable about killing the innocent i guess...

Actually, Res, it wasn't Ben who said that. It was Michael — who, I believe, is on your side of the issue.

I think it depends on what you say the basis of your morals and values are. If you say you believe in the "culture of life," than backing death penalty is morally inconsistent.

If, OTOH, you support abortion rights but oppose the death penalty because you believe the state shouldn't make things kinds of decisions for individuals and that it is improper for the state to interfere with these Constitutional rights to privacy and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, then there is consistency.

My mistake, although I don't think Mike and I are on the same side in this issue so my objection to the misinterpretation of the facts still stands.

If you say you believe in the "culture of life," than backing death penalty is morally inconsistent.

Maybe a question of nomenclature. Suppose instead, i said that i support a culture of innocence, vs. guilt. Or good, vs. evil. Either of which would be more accurate than "culture of life, vs. death". Would it make a difference to you Res?

Res: "If you say you believe in the "culture of life," than backing death penalty is morally inconsistent."

That's only true if we let you define what a culture of life consists of. As you apparently don't share that culture, perhaps you aren't best suited for the job. Instead, you could ask those of us who are in it to define what a culture of life consists of.

For me, a culture of life does not include everyone. It can't. Such a culture would be incoherent. It would not survive.

A culture of life must protect itself. For example, it must kill terrorists who would come and kill us. Sometimes life requires killing killers. Is that really so hard to understand?

And sometimes we catch someone who has killed others in such a way as to show that he has a total disregard for life. He has left our culture. He doesn't want us to live. So we kill him, to 1) make sure he is no longer a burden on the taxpayers or an escape risk, 2) to give satisfaction to the victims' families, and 3) to make it clear that we're willing to defend our culture of life.

"If, OTOH, you support abortion rights but oppose the death penalty because you believe the state shouldn't make things kinds of decisions for individuals and that it is improper for the state to interfere with these Constitutional rights to privacy and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, then there is consistency."

Does that sentence really mean something to you, Res? Because all I see is hand-waving.

You believe that the state shouldn't make those decisions? Why?

You say that it's improper for the state to do this? Why?

You say that there's a right to privacy in the Constitution? Where? And why should there be such a right?

What foundation ties your morality together, Res? What moral principles do you use? What are your moral principles ultimately trying to accomplish? My moral principles are trying to perpetuate life: our individual lives, as well as the life of our culture and nation. What are your moral principles trying to accomplish?

Oddly, I would say almost exactly the same thing, Ben. My moral principles try to perpetuate life and individual freedom; our lives and the lives of our culture and nation. I believe it scars our nations and our culture when we execute our citizenry when we know the inherent flaws in our justice system. Our nation is scarred when we execute the mentally ill or people who committed crimes as children.

OTOH, giving people to make personal decisions about their own lives and bodies also furthers our culture because it furthers individual freedom and autonomy. A woman deciding terminate a pregnancy is part of that individual freedom. So is a spouse following their spouses wishes to not provide life-extending treatment at the end-of-life.

"Due to the extreme invasive nature of the feeding tube, it is considered medical treatment."

So food and drink are medicine?

Michael, can you articulate the principles that are both consistent with your stand on the Schiavo situation and will keep our system from heading down the road the Netherlands has been on for some time? Or do you think what they are doing (euthanizing people who didn't request it, including newborns) is morally acceptable?

Perhaps you guys shouldn't be so confident in the PVS diagnosis. I hadn't heard of this story prior to today, but it's mind-boggling. Are you willing to risk starving someone to death who might be aware of what you're doing?

As I said in the other thread Res Ipsa (although directed to the person calling themself reality based), am I suppose to be impressed at your being a half-hearted pro-lifer? You are only pro-life if it doesn't conflict with personal choice? As much as I deplore the death penalty, at least there is the specific goal of trying to prevent future murder in the intent behind it. The same cannot be said for abortion. As much as I deplore war, at least with our country's actions there is the specific goal of trying to protect a benevolent form of society, and protecting our citizens, as well as preventing future murder in the intent behind killing terrorists. The same cannot be said for starving a mentally disabled person to death, even if it could be proved they had at one time thought they wouldn't want to live that way.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again. Making out a Living Will is a despicable act. It makes potential murderers out of your loved ones by shifting the responsibility of that atrocity to their undeserving shoulders. <sarcasm>What a great way to show them you love them.</sarcasm> My spouse already knows I wouldn't honor a Living Will even if it existed. But I wouldn't desert my spouse like Terri's slimeball husband did. It's still my opinion that he's the one that put her in the state she's in too. He ought to be convicted for attempted murder.

I'm very proud of my living will, which provides for no feeding tubes in case of pvs. And actually, people who support having feeding tubes in pvs should also have a living will stating that's what they want. The idea that people should oppose living wills is stupid. Not even the Catholic Church opposes living wills per se.

Joel, read that link I posted above - you might have a little less faith in the correct diagnosis of PVS.

Also, I don't know about this analysis, but it seems there might be something amiss either with Terri's CT scan or with the interpretation of it.

http://codeblueblog.blogs.com/codeblueblog/2005/03/csi_medblogs_co.html

Interesting that we're talking about the death penalty. Isn't death by starvation considered cruel and unusual?

They shoot horses, don't they?

Cruel and unusual applies to criminals being punished by the state. I'm not sure why that concept is so difficult to grasp.

Cruel and unusual applies to criminals being punished by the state. I'm not sure why that concept is so difficult to grasp.

I think that Terri's husband made a bad choice in deciding to stop feeding her. Who is to say medicine won't one day be able to repair her brain damage? And even if Terri never recovers, the husband should have let her live because her family loves her so much if for no other reason. It seems as if he is being very selfish.

The court also made the wrong choice, since they made the assumption that Terri will never recover. How do they know? Congress was justified in enacting legislation to set this right, but they should have made a general law instead of an act specific to Terri, which will never stand up in court.

Why is it selfish to act on your wife's wishes but not selfish to maintain someone in a PVS, despite mountains of medical evidence she won't recover, just to ease your grief or guilt?

Joel said:

"And actually, people who support having feeding tubes in pvs should also have a living will stating that's what they want."

Fat lot of good that will do you when a bunch of doctors, lawyers and judges think you have an obligation to die just because you are mentally disabled and need a feeding tube.

Joel also said:

"The idea that people should oppose living wills is stupid."

No it is not. It is called a decision to trust your family members to be capable of making decisions for you when you aren't capable. But hey, if you don't trust them, go ahead and put it on paper that you don't.

Res: Why is it selfish to act on your wife's wishes but not selfish to maintain someone in a PVS, despite mountains of medical evidence she won't recover, just to ease your grief or guilt?

If Terri's husband is really acting out of respect for her wishes, then he is not being selfish. However, there is a cloud over his decision because he stands to benefit from Terri's death. That may not be his conscious thought process, but it is part of the reality and could have unconsciously skewed his decision.

It would be selfish to maintain someone's life artificially, if they were in great pain or if there were no hope of recovery. But Terri does not fit in that category. It's a long shot, but perhaps some new treatment, such as neuronal regeneration through stem cell technology, will heal her and we can ask Terri herself what her wishes are.

Ironically, the same faction that's fighting to keep Terri alive also opposes stem cell research.

Res ipsa,

"Why is it selfish to act on your wife's wishes but not selfish to maintain someone in a PVS, despite mountains of medical evidence she won't recover, just to ease your grief or guilt?"

Why are you so confident that Michael Schiavo is accurately conveying his wife's wishes, given that a) he did not make these wishes known until 7 years after her heart attack, and b) that he has conflicts of interest?

The argument for keeping her alive is not to assuage grief or guilt (though the former may be an important motivator for the Schindler's), it's a matter of justice. We should not intentionally kill someone in a PVS absent a clear statement that that was their intent. And in this particular case, there is a serious question as to whether she really is in a PVS. So we're risking slowly torturing someone to death.

Res: Cruel and unusual applies to criminals being punished by the state. I'm not sure why that concept is so difficult to grasp.

Once again, our disagreement is not over life/death, but good/evil. You act as if criminals should be spared cruel and unusual punishment, while the innocent should not!

Interestingly, Joe Carter pins the blame for this whole fiasco on the State of Florida, and their no-fault divorce and lack of common-law marriage statutes.

very interesting theory...

Matt,

"Ironically, the same faction that's fighting to keep Terri alive also opposes stem cell research."

Nobody opposes adult stem cell research, and at present, there is a much higher likelihood of such treatments arising from that avenue than via embryonic stem cell research. There are zero potential therapies in the pipeline for ES cells. Zero.

Also, what we object to is the destruction of embryos. If a way can be found to make ES cells, or something very close to them, without destroying an embryo, I won't have any moral objections to using them in appropriate treatments.

"You act as if criminals should be spared cruel and unusual punishment, while the innocent should not!"

From the perspective of Constitutional rights, you are correct that I am unconcerned about the "innocent." Terri Schiavo has had many many many days in court and the process has worked. That you don't like the judicial outcome doesn't mean she didn't have her day in court and her rights considered.

Mike S.: There are zero potential therapies in the pipeline for ES cells. Zero.

Is that because ES cell technology is inherently less promising, or because of the legal obstacles that have been erected against ES cell research?

Mike S.: Also, what we object to is the destruction of embryos.

I agree that destruction of human embryos should be avoided if at all possible. However, if the destruction of a very small embryo is necessary to save the life of a fully developed human being, I believe that is warranted.

"Is that because ES cell technology is inherently less promising, or because of the legal obstacles that have been erected against ES cell research?"

The former. There's plenty of research going on with federal money on the ESC lines Bush made available for such funding, and there are private funds going to such research as well. And there's research going on in other countries. There's also unlimited research on mouse ES cells going back two decades or more. The basic problem is that we don't know how to control what the ES cells turn into very well.

"I agree that destruction of human embryos should be avoided if at all possible."

On what grounds?

"However, if the destruction of a very small embryo is necessary to save the life of a fully developed human being, I believe that is warranted."

Ah, so size does matter! I thought it was consciousness that mattered...

Mike S.: Ah, so size does matter! I thought it was consciousness that mattered

Consciousness is the issue. Our confidence that such a small embryo is conscious is very, very low compared to a more developed human.

Mike S.: On what grounds [should we avoid destroying human embryos]?

Confidence in the consciousness of small embryos is very low, but nonzero. Therefore it is preferable to use alternative means that have absolutely no chance of destroying a human consciousness, such as adult stem cells.

Mike S.: Do you think it is a good idea to make moral distinctions about who is or who is not a person based upon something as difficult to define and measure as consciousness?

Consciousness is very difficult to define and measure, but what better criterion is there? Genetic membership in our species is, by itself, an unsatisfactory criterion for personhood, since we may in the future discover (or create?) other sentient life forms. Treating them as nonpersons would be the moral equivalent of racism.

Surely you don't think that people who are in a coma are automatically nonpersons?

A previously conscious human in a coma is still a person as long as there is the remotest possibility that they may resume that consciousness in the future.

Sorry, Matt, but this is just a silly argument:

Genetic membership in our species is, by itself, an unsatisfactory criterion for personhood, since we may in the future discover (or create?) other sentient life forms. Treating them as nonpersons would be the moral equivalent of racism.

We're not deciding a closed definition for personhood. One can add other species, just as we added other races.

And it seems to me that you're being arbitrary with your "previously conscious" here:

A previously conscious human in a coma is still a person as long as there is the remotest possibility that they may resume that consciousness in the future.

Why does the past matter one bit? (Except, of course, to allow abortions and stem-cell research.) From fertilization, there's a very good chance that the resulting human being will be conscious in the future.

Yes, that "genetic membership" line cracked me up. Let's make moral distinctions about who and who is not a person based upon completely fanciful futuristic possibilities - great idea!

"Consciousness is the issue."

What's your definition of consciousness?

http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/Affidavit.pdf

After reading this, it's pretty hard to see how we're not gruesomely torturing someone to death.

Perhaps, Matt, you could figure out whether someone in the condition described in this affidavit fits your definition of "conscious"?

I disagree that a living will providing for and/or prohibiting the removal of feeding tubes would be ignored by the courts.

Justin: [defining personhood to include nonhuman intelligent life] is just a silly argument ... We're not deciding a closed definition for personhood.

I'll assume you mean that it's silly to imagine sentient nonhumans, since Mike S. had the same reaction. Since you don't accept that scenario as realistic, there's no point delving into it further.

It's clear neither of you accepts the consciousness/sentience criteria as a definition of personhood. What then are acceptable criteria for personhood, in your view? For example, why do you believe each of the following is or is not a living person?:

1) Terry Schiavo
2) A baby in the womb, 6 months after conception
3) ... 6 weeks after conception (embryo)
4) ... 4 days after conception (blastocyst)
5) ... immediately after conception
6) An egg cell immediately before conception
7) Koko the gorilla

Is it possible to form an objective definition of personhood, or must each case be judged subjectively?

Mike S: Perhaps, Matt, you could figure out whether someone in the condition described in this affidavit fits your definition of "conscious"?

Mike, if you recall, I believe Terri should continue to receive food and water. I think we agree on this point.

Justin: And it seems to me that you're being arbitrary with your "previously conscious" here ... Why does the past matter one bit?

Yes it sounds arbitrary, but I was trying to make sense of another scenario that came to mind as I was writing that ... stop now if you care not to read more futuristic speculation.

One could hypothetically induce a patient who is completely brain-dead to regenerate a new brain. Presumably their memory and personality would be erased in the process, which raises an ethical question: is this really restoring a living person to health, or is it artificially creating a new person?

Intuitively, it seems we are only talking about the same person if there is continuity of memory and personality, i.e. consciousness. That is why I though the past would be morally relevant.

I'll assume you mean that it's silly to imagine sentient nonhumans

No, it's silly to imagine that defining "personhood" as a self-contained human organism with unique DNA would prevent us from adding to that definition "a self-contained sentient alien organism with unique whatever-makes-them-each-unique. We might also run into other species in the universe that are not sentient. They would fall in the unthinking beast category.

As it happens, though, I think consciousness is an important aspect of personhood. And your distinction between counting a person as the same person or a different one is irrelevant. Either way, that person who has been "saved" from brain death is a person.

Conciousness Schmonciosness... aren't we talking about souls here?

Those who believe that humans have immoral souls aslo believe it is something worthy of the utmost respect. Those that don't, believe they are expendable -- and believe that everyone else is expendable too! Eat, Drink and be Dust to Dust, for tommorow we are Nil!

Which kind of person would YOU want as your physician?

Heh, freudian correction of me: "...have immortal souls also..."

Justin: it's silly to imagine that defining "personhood" as a self-contained human organism with unique DNA would prevent us from adding to that definition "a self-contained sentient alien with unique whatever..."

If personhood is really something fundamental and objective, then "adding to that definition" makes no sense. You seem to be saying that personhood is something we can willfully grant or deny. I can't accept that, since it leaves too much room for us to choose definitions that suit our own agenda.

Unfortunately, it appears that both pro-life and pro-choice activists have done just that. The pro-life faction puts the beginning of human life at conception, just where it needs to be to allow contraception but forbid abortion. The pro-choice faction puts the beginning of human life at birth, or very close to it, which is just where it needs to be to allow abortion on demand. In both cases, the definition is just too convenient.

Marty: Those who believe that humans have immortal souls also believe it is something worthy of the utmost respect.

Nonsense! How many times have I heard a believer in the immortal soul say "you will burn in Hell forever" with an air of satisfaction? That is the ultimate disrespect.

How many times have I heard a believer in the immortal soul say "you will burn in Hell forever" with an air of satisfaction?

I don't know. It sounds like another strawman to me.

You seem to be saying that personhood is something we can willfully grant or deny. I can't accept that, since it leaves too much room for us to choose definitions that suit our own agenda.

I'm sorry, Matt, but I can't escape the feeling that you're deliberately missing my point for the sake of argumentation. I suppose the most direct way to put it is that consciousness may be a marker by which we judge a species' "personhood" — as in humans and in some as yet unknown organism — but that, having judged a species capable of "personhood," it makes perfect sense to afford each individual the status without having to judge consciousness on a case-by-case basis.

To your "grant or deny" suggestion: I don't see how your demand that we judge consciousness and potential consciousness is any less susceptible to the same flaws. But again, I think your point is silly; you're asking for a definition that would include unknown beings, but insisting that we can't wait to meet the unknown beings before we decide on a definition that would or would not include them.

The pro-life faction puts the beginning of human life at conception, just where it needs to be to allow contraception but forbid abortion.

And you've left just enough room to allow ESCR. Convenient or not (FYI, I'm against contraception [as a personal choice, not as an allowable freedom]), conception is the point at which two things come together to make a third, unique thing that, unless disrupted, will progress of its own volition through the life cycle of a human being.

Matt, my friend, i have neither the power nor the inclination to sentance you to eternal hellfire, even if i thought you deserved it. My words have no power over you.

About the MOST anyone can do is hasten someone else's arrival before the Judge. And i'm willing to do that, in the case of an obviously evil and sadistic criminal. It's funny how willing some are to do that in the case of an innocent child, or a handicapped adult, yet would fain from judging against evil. Ok, it's not funny after all -- it's downright bone-chilling.

Justin: consciousness may be a marker by which we judge a species' "personhood" — as in humans and in some as yet unknown organism — but that, having judged a species capable of "personhood," it makes perfect sense to afford each individual the status without having to judge consciousness on a case-by-case basis.

I agree with this statement.

... you're asking for a definition that would include unknown beings, but insisting that we can't wait to meet the unknown beings ...

OK, that is silly. What I was aiming for is some general rule to avoid the mistake that has been made over and over again -- when confronted with people who are different in some way, we have a tendency, at first, to categorize them as unworthy of full "personhood". Your allusion to "adding other races to our definition" of humanity is a prime example. If only we had accepted that all races of humanity are people from the beginning, so much suffering would have been avoided.

Convenient or not ... conception is the point at which two things come together to make a third, unique thing that, unless disrupted, will progress ... through the life cycle of a human being.

An embryo conceived in vitro will not progress through a full life cycle unless implanted in a uterus. Let's say the embryo is never actively destroyed, just left in the petri dish where its growth stops at a certain point. If we believe that the embryo's humanity has been violated in this scenario, then the transgression must have occured prior to conception, since there is no intervention afterward.

I am not saying we should be cavalier in creating and destroying embryos, just that is not so clear cut that conception is the point at which we should begin to consider the embryo's rights.

MT: just that is not so clear cut that conception is the point at which we should begin to consider the embryo's rights.

The only thing that is clear cut is that left to its own natural recourse, the embryo will achieve the exact same rights as you or i have. It is only by the intervention of you or i, or by the hand of God, that it will fail to acheive those same equal rights.

I'm not particularly comfortable intervening here, especially considering that i have nothing to add to this "person's" life -- i can only take it away.

If only we had accepted that all races of humanity are people from the beginning, so much suffering would have been avoided.

But we didn't, and I fail to see how your suggestions vis-a-vis consciousness will prevent the same thing from happening in the future. To but it coarsely, the general approach that I take is intended to extend the obvious "personhood" of those for whom it is obvious to those for whom it is not. In dealing with the unknown that would seem to be the most sure way to avoid future speciesism.

An embryo conceived in vitro will not progress through a full life cycle unless implanted in a uterus. ... If we believe that the embryo's humanity has been violated in this scenario, then the transgression must have occured prior to conception, since there is no intervention afterward.

Well, it would seem a stretch to phrase the violation as one of "humanity." Pre-fertilization, there is no organism to be violated. I oppose in vitro (again, as a personal option, not as a freedom) in part because it is impossible to accomplish without killing embryos, and in part because it involves additional parties and gadgets in the parents, child's, and society's understanding of birth and life.

But I'd suggest that, having created an embryo, those who have done so are under a sort of natural contract implied by the process that in vitro immitates. Imagine you're having your house's doors redone, and the contractor explains that the damage is so extensive that he wants to fix them in the shop. If he failed to bring them back, would you say that the problem predated the contract, and that "there is no intervention afterward"?

"I oppose in vitro (again, as a personal option, not as a freedom) in part because it is impossible to accomplish without killing embryos,"

If you believe people should be free to kill embryos through IVF, why don't you believe people should be free to kill embryos through induced abortion?

"conception is the point at which two things come together to make a third, unique thing that, unless disrupted, will progress of its own volition through the life cycle of a human being."

Not true in the case of monozygotic twins and chimeras, even if we grant the dubious assumption that fertilization is otherwise the beginning of a human being.

FS: even if we grant the dubious assumption that fertilization is otherwise the beginning of a human being.

Am i hearing this right? Did you just say that fertilization as the beginning of a human being was "dubious"?

Please tell me i'm wrong, otherwise defend your own "assumption" please.

"Please tell me i'm wrong, otherwise defend your own "assumption" please."

I'm not making an assumption. I'm expressing skepticism towards Justin's assumption.

Scepticism that a fertilized egg is the beginning of human life? As opposed to what, cold fusion?

"Scepticism that a fertilized egg is the beginning of human life?"

The beginning of a human being. Or, if you prefer, "human life." Given the clear lack of consensus on when "human beings" or "human lives" begin to exist, the assumption is highly dubious.

Justin: ... the general approach that I take is intended to extend the obvious "personhood" of those for whom it is obvious to those for whom it is not.

In that case, we have the same goal.

I'd suggest that, having created an embryo, those who have done so are under a sort of natural contract implied by the process that in vitro imitates.

Here you're touching on the point where we don't agree, and it is exactly the issue that got me involved in this discussion in the first place. Your suggestion implies deference to a certain conception of natural order, namely the state of nature as it would be without human action. This is a fundamentally religious point of view.

Imagine you're having your house's doors redone, and ... he wants to fix them in the shop. If he failed to bring them back, would you say that ... "there is no intervention afterward"?

That analogy isn't quite accurate. We're not talking about removing an already-fertilized egg from a woman's body, but an egg that would never have been fertilized were it not for the in vitro process. Your requirement is more like saying, "if anyone makes a door, they are morally obliged to find a house on which to install the door".

FatSlim,

I apologize; in my haste and tiredness I too closely mirrored previous language related to contraception. I oppose IVF all around, but the lower prominence and moral complexity of the issue make it something that I'm not inclined to advocate against while other matters are still a concern.

As for the suggestion that fertilization is the beginning of a human being's life, I'm not sure who lack consensus, here. There's some room to fudge terminology, but the debate is generally over "personhood" and the like. That fertilization begins a new human life is just a matter of biology.

Your suggestion implies deference to a certain conception of natural order, namely the state of nature as it would be without human action.

Not really. The state of nature without human action would be a sperm and an egg. When somebody acts to combine the two, thus creating a human being, that somebody has responsibility to that human being. Human beings, once created, have a drive and a right to continue in that process without passively being killed. In the case of IVF, the lack of a ready womb is the creator's doing.

All I'm relying on is a notion of rights that extends to those who lack the power to insist on them, and the notion of responsibility for our actions. I agree, ultimately, that the latter is ultimately a religious view, which is why atheism is such a dangerous faith.

An embryo conceived in vitro will not progress through a full life cycle unless implanted in a uterus. Let's say the embryo is never actively destroyed, just left in the petri dish where its growth stops at a certain point. If we believe that the embryo's humanity has been violated in this scenario, then the transgression must have occured prior to conception, since there is no intervention afterward.

Matt, what if I rewrote your paragraph this way:

An infant will not progress through a full life cycle unless given food, water, and shelter. Let's say the infant is never actively destroyed, just left in the crib where its growth stops at a certain point. If we believe that the infant's humanity has been violated in this scenario, then the transgression must have occured prior to birth, since there is no intervention afterward.

For what it's worth, I used to have pretty much the same view as you do. As I read & thought about the issue, I came to realize that my position was untenable (I was a Christian throughout this whole process, so my faith wasn't necessarily the deciding factor - reason was.) Perhaps you will come to the same conclusion if you study the issue long enough.

Marty said,

"Conciousness Schmonciosness... aren't we talking about souls here?"

Later on Fat Slim replied to Justin's comment:

"conception is the point at which two things come together to make a third, unique thing that, unless disrupted, will progress of its own volition through the life cycle of a human being."

>Not true in the case of monozygotic twins and chimeras...

At the point of conception, there is, in fact, a unique human organism that is directing it's own development. At the point when it splits into two separate embryos, there are now two unique (they are not even genetically identical, as they will receive different copies of the mitochondria, which will have different mutations in their DNA, and they very well may have differences in their germline DNA as well), self-directed human organisms. There is never a point at which there was not a unique, self-directed human organism, or where there is an organism that doesn't have the inherent right not to be killed.

I actually think it is not helpful to talk about souls in this context, because nobody can define what a soul is, or how we can recognize it, or how we know when a human being has it. It leads to a dualistic picture whereby there is some biological "vessel" that the non-corporeal soul enters into or inhabits. The point is that human beings have inherent rights due to the fact that they are human beings, not due to some particular characteristics (such as consciousness) they may or may not have. Biologically, the point at which a human being comes into existence is at the point of conception - all the embryonic & developmental textbooks agree on this point.

There really is a strict dichotomy here: either all human beings have rights, from conception onward, or only some human beings have rights, which are dependent upon having some particular characteristic or set of characteristics. The problem with the latter view is that there is no non-arbitrary way to decide which characteristics confer personhood. We used to say that skin color or gender was a determining factor (and many societies still do). The Nazis used to use a variety of criteria in making this determination. Now there are people (like Peter Singer) who take a more extreme view of Matt's consciousness position and argue that newborn infants are not persons, and thus can be killed with impunity. Obviously there are many people who think the same thing of infants who have not yet travelled all the way down the birth canal. If you aren't going to take the consistent position that all human organisms have rights, then you are saying that arbitrary criteria will be used to decide who has rights. These criteria may be more tight or more loose, but they depend entirely on the views of those in control of the laws.

For example, why do you believe each of the following is or is not a living person?:

1) Terry Schiavo
Yes.
2) A baby in the womb, 6 months after conception
Yes.
3) ... 6 weeks after conception (embryo)
Yes.
4) ... 4 days after conception (blastocyst)
Yes.
5) ... immediately after conception
Yes.
6) An egg cell immediately before conception
No.
7) Koko the gorilla
No.

Matt said:

"How many times have I heard a believer in the immortal soul say "you will burn in Hell forever" with an air of satisfaction?"

Considering your claim to being agnostic, let me be the first Christian to say I don't think you will burn. I think instead that God will stuff you in a dark sensory deprivation box somewhere and claim your existence is unknowable.. kind of like Schrodinger's cat. But God is more imaginative than I am.

Check it out, even Andrew Sullivan previously argued that embryos deserve protection. Although, as Ross Douthat points out, he's now ignoring that line of reasoning in arguing that Schiavo should be killed. But nobody around here expects Sullivan to be consistent...

Good line from the Douthat post:

We'll Call It "Terri's Law": I think that we should establish a law of punditry, which says that whenever Andrew Sullivan and John Derbyshire agree about something, odds are very, very good that they're both mistaken.

smmtheory: I think instead that God will stuff you in a dark sensory deprivation box...

Justin: ...atheism is such a dangerous faith.

Marty: the MOST anyone can do is hasten someone else's arrival before the Judge. And i'm willing to do that...

You guys, what is going on here? I agree with most of you on a lot of policy choices, though for different underlying reasons. That seems to get you more worked up than people who totally disagree with you about everything. Unexpected and baffling ...

"I'm willing to do that ... in the case of an obvious evil and sadistic criminal."

Yep, that's what i said alright. And i'll stand by it too -- just don't leave off the second half of my statement please, lest you pretend it means what you imagine it too, instead of what i plainly said.

If you're not an obviously evil and sadistic criminal, you need not worry yourself about little ole me...

That's a long-standing general opinion of mine, Matt, not a reaction to you.

Mike S writes:

"At the point of conception, there is, in fact, a unique human organism that is directing it's own development. At the point when it splits into two separate embryos, there are now two unique (they are not even genetically identical, as they will receive different copies of the mitochondria, which will have different mutations in their DNA, and they very well may have differences in their germline DNA as well), self-directed human organisms. There is never a point at which there was not a unique, self-directed human organism, or where there is an organism that doesn't have the inherent right not to be killed."

But twins and chimeras illustrate the basic conceptual problem with this theory of life. How can conception be the event that creates a single, unique human being when in the case of twins there is one conception and two unique human beings? Where did the second one come from? And in the case of a chimera, in which a single embryo splits into two embryos which then fuse into a single embryo again, how can the two embryos be two unique human beings if they can later merge to become a single one? What these events imply is that an embryo is only some kind of representation of a human being or human beings--like a blueprint or, more accurately, a recipe and a partial set of ingredients--and that actual unique human beings begin to exist only at some point after the processes of embryonic division and fusion can occur.

Justin,

"I apologize; in my haste and tiredness I too closely mirrored previous language related to contraception. I oppose IVF all around, but the lower prominence and moral complexity of the issue make it something that I'm not inclined to advocate against while other matters are still a concern."

If the reason you think abortion is immoral and should be a crime is that it kills embryos, why doesn't that reason apply as much or more to the destruction of embryos through IVF? After all, in IVF, there is no alleged right of a pregnant woman to control her body in opposition to the alleged right to life of the embryo, so your objection to killing the embryo should have even more force. And, unlike abortion, there is no constitutional obstacle to laws banning IVF. As far as we know, states are perfectly free to ban IVF. And it isn't as if IVF is an inconsequential or minor cause of embryo death; tens of thousands of American couples undergo IVF every year, and each procedure typically causes the destruction of multiple embryos. Many of the embryos that are not destroyed initially are frozen and either destroyed later or die later from natural degradation over time. It is estimated that there are hundreds of thousands of frozen embryos in American fertility clinics and research labs, the vast majority of which will either be destroyed or die naturally from lack of gestation.

FatSlim: How can conception be the event that creates a single, unique human being when in the case of twins there is one conception and two unique human beings?

Perhaps division of a fertilized egg into identical twins is an event of equal ethical importance to conception. If one believes that a unique human being comes to life at conception, then it would follow that a second human life begins when the embryo divides in two.

FatSlim,

Re: twins. We've been down this path, 'round here. Imagine a world in which cloning is a reality; at that point, every single human being is potentially two (or more) human beings. Does that mean that no human being will be a person? I like Matt's point, but even without it, I simply can't figure the math that argues "if 1, then 1; if 2, then 0."

Re: IVF. I don't think you caught my meaning.

Matt said:

"You guys, what is going on here? I agree with most of you on a lot of policy choices, though for different underlying reasons. That seems to get you more worked up than people who totally disagree with you about everything. Unexpected and baffling ..."

You thought I was worked up? LOL! I just like messing with the minds of people who claim to be agnostic or atheistic.

Justin,

"Imagine a world in which cloning is a reality; at that point, every single human being is potentially two (or more) human beings. Does that mean that no human being will be a person?"

No. I don't know what you think this question has to do with the argument I made about conception and twins. Do you have a response to that argument?

"Re: IVF. I don't think you caught my meaning."

Maybe not. But I'd still like to know why you're not lobbying hard against IVF and the people who use it if you think it's a serious wrongdoing and ought to be a crime.

Matt:

"Perhaps division of a fertilized egg into identical twins is an event of equal ethical importance to conception. If one believes that a unique human being comes to life at conception, then it would follow that a second human life begins when the embryo divides in two."

Either the embryo created at conception is a single unique human being that begins to exist at that time, or it is a representation or antecedent of two unique human beings that begin to exist at some time after it divides. I don't see how it can logically be both. If it is the former, where does the second unique human being come from?

FatSlim: Either the embryo created at conception is a single unique human being that begins to exist at that time, or it is a representation or antecedent of two unique human beings ... I don't see how it can logically be both. ...

At any point in time, it is possible to unambiguously count how many distinct, biologically active human organisms exist. At the instant when that number increases by one, biological human life has been created. It may not be possible to say which of the organisms is "new" and which is "old", as you have pointed out, but there are definitely more human organisms than before.

At the instant when the human organism count decreases by one, biological human life has been destroyed. I think the absolute pro-life position is that any action which deliberately causes such a "destruction event" is the killing of a person.

Regarding the previous discussion of embryonic stem cells, it comes to mind that human stem cells would be of no more scientific value than cells from other animal embryos. The biological processes that are not well-understood (cell differentiation, morphogenesis, etc.) can be observed in all animals, probably even in plants and fungi as well.

On that basis, there should be no reason to collect ethically problematic human ES cells for research, since so many other species are available. It makes me wonder why researchers are trying so hard to get funding for work on human ES cells. Couldn't they just use fruit fly embryos or something?

FatSlim,

I'm not going to keep reformulating points that you have failed to address just because you claim that they haven't been made. Go back if necessary, but if you want discussion to continue, you're going to have to address things that have already been said.

FatSlim,

What these events imply is that an embryo is only some kind of representation of a human being or human beings--like a blueprint or, more accurately, a recipe and a partial set of ingredients--and that actual unique human beings begin to exist only at some point after the processes of embryonic division and fusion can occur.

On the practical level, for any given embryo you don't know whether it's capable of twinning, or whether if you didn't kill it, it would develop into one or two (or more) distinct human beings. So at best there is an ambiguity there, on your reasoning, about whether you are killing a human being. In such cases it is preferable to err on the side of caution.

On the philosophical level, what is the process that changes the "recipe and a partial set of ingredients" into "actual unique human beings [that] begin to exist"? Is there some fundamental change in the nature of the embryo? What is the nature of this change?

"If the reason you think abortion is immoral and should be a crime is that it kills embryos, why doesn't that reason apply as much or more to the destruction of embryos through IVF?"

My view is that IVF embryos should all be implanted into a woman's uterus and given the chance to develop. They shouldn't be intentionally killed. The lower level of political attention paid to IVF is due to politics and human nature. Politically, it is not possible to apply equal attention and effort to every issue that one thinks is important. The reason abortion gets much more attention is that people are much more moved by the destruction of fetuses because they can see them and react emotionally to them. People don't react emotionally to a clump of cells that you can only see in a microscope. But we don't make moral distinctions based solely upon emotional responses, so just because people don't react as strongly to destruction of IVF embryos doesn't mean it's any more just from a rational point of view.

IVF is coming under more scrutiny with all the attention paid to ES cells and 'therapeutic' (therapeutic for who?) cloning. It's become more visible in the public eye, and thus a more salient political topic. That's just how politics works.

Matt,

Regarding the previous discussion of embryonic stem cells, it comes to mind that human stem cells would be of no more scientific value than cells from other animal embryos. The biological processes that are not well-understood (cell differentiation, morphogenesis, etc.) can be observed in all animals, probably even in plants and fungi as well.

On that basis, there should be no reason to collect ethically problematic human ES cells for research, since so many other species are available. It makes me wonder why researchers are trying so hard to get funding for work on human ES cells. Couldn't they just use fruit fly embryos or something?

They do use animal models for research. There are three reasons why people are pushing for federal funding of ES cell research, in my opinion. 1) Scientists don't like being told what they can and cannot do, especially someone who is religious like Bush (even though he didn't list any religious principles as reasons for not funding research that would destroy embryos). 2) Therapies cannot be developed from mouse ES cells, and the political reality is that more money flows to areas that promise treatments for human disease. You can't promise to cure someone's Parkinson's or diabetes if you're only working on mouse cells. 3) The abortion question. As our discussion indicates, there is a relationship between the abortion question and the embryo question. Abortion is sacrosanct for most liberal elites, and they will irrationally fight in the most intense way against anything they think impinges upon the 'right' to abortion (witness the preposterous arguments put forth in defense of partial birth abortion). Basically, they don't want people to think, "hey, we're not allowed to destroy embryos because they are human beings, why do we allow doctors to destroy fetuses simply because the mother tells them to?"

The reason abortion gets much more attention is that people are much more moved by the destruction of fetuses because they can see them and react emotionally to them. People don't react emotionally to a clump of cells that you can only see in a microscope.

This is part of it, of course, but I think another significant consideration is intention. In IVF, the embryos are created with the goal of a child; unfortunately, many wind up dying for the sake of the one (or few) who are given the chance to live. (It might make for an interesting discussion whether IVF would be moral if the law were that every embryo had to be given a chance to live within a certain period of time.) With abortion, on the other hand, the goal is to end a life, usually because it was created under undesirable circumstances (however the individual chooses to define that).

As I said, IVF is simply a more-complicated moral issue.

Mike S.: Therapies cannot be developed from mouse ES cells...

No, mouse ES cells are unlikely to be usable for medical treatment of humans. However, the mouse cells could still be used to refine a detailed, accurate model of embryo development at the cellular level. Armed with such a model, perhaps the promised therapies could be developed through a route that does not require destruction of human embryos.

Good point, Justin. I had thought of that too, but forgot to put it in the post.

Matt, I agree with you - given our state of knowlege right now about embryogenesis and development, there is no pressing need to do experiments on human embryos (this is aside from the moral concerns). People have an image of scientists as being coldly rational all the time, but they're not. They engage in just as much irrational behavior as everybody else.

Matt Taylor:

"At any point in time, it is possible to unambiguously count how many distinct, biologically active human organisms exist. At the instant when that number increases by one, biological human life has been created.

The issue is not the number of "biologically active human organisms," it is the number of entities to which you attach moral significance--"unique human beings" or "unique human lives." If an embryo divides, creating two new embryos, and those embryos acquire the status of "unique human beings" at that time or some later time, then the initial embryo cannot have been a unique human being. It must have consisted of two unique human beings, or the precursor to two unique human beings, packaged into a single embryo.

"It may not be possible to say which of the organisms is "new" and which is "old", as you have pointed out, but there are definitely more human organisms than before."

But if unique human beings are defined by a set of biological characteristics that are accessible to science, and one of the unique human beings that exists after division is the same unique human being that existed before division, how can it not be possible, at least in principle, to determine which one it is?

Similarly, in the case of chimeras, if the merging of two unique human beings results in a single unique human being, what happens to the other one? Where does it go? It doesn't die, because no embryo dies in such a merge.

Justin Katz:

"This is part of it, of course, but I think another significant consideration is intention. In IVF, the embryos are created with the goal of a child; unfortunately, many wind up dying for the sake of the one (or few) who are given the chance to live. (It might make for an interesting discussion whether IVF would be moral if the law were that every embryo had to be given a chance to live within a certain period of time.) With abortion, on the other hand, the goal is to end a life, usually because it was created under undesirable circumstances (however the individual chooses to define that). As I said, IVF is simply a more-complicated moral issue."

But the distinction you are making is meaningless. The fact that the IVF couple's ultimate goal is to produce a child doesn't alter the fact that their proximate goal is the killing of an embryo. Murder is murder whether it's done as a means to an end (like inheriting a fortune, or creating a baby) or as an end in itself. If you believe that embryos are persons, then I don't see how you can logically avoid the conclusion that IVF is murder. And if you believe that IVF is murder, why are you not morally obliged to seek to criminalize it as such?

You know what fatslim? It kind of looks like you are deliberately being obtuse about this. How difficult is it to understand that when the sperm fertilizes the egg, unique life is created. Whether it be one child, twins, triplets, quadruplets or otherwise. That growing life has DNA that is a combination of the two contributing partners. That unique life is deserving of the same respect and dignity of any other unique life that has previously made it alive from its mothers womb.

I've told you, FatSlim, that I'm not going to repeat myself when you've neglected to address points already on the table. I will suggest, however, that you turn to a dictionary for help making distinctions between various forms of killing.

As well with the ranting about the moral equivalence of IVF to abortion. You also overlook the fact that so many more abortions are performed compared to the number of attempts to produce children through IVF. The costs for IVF are prohibitive to widespread occurrence. Do you even oppose abortion FatSlim?

Mike S:

"On the practical level, for any given embryo you don't know whether it's capable of twinning, or whether if you didn't kill it, it would develop into one or two (or more) distinct human beings. So at best there is an ambiguity there, on your reasoning, about whether you are killing a human being."

Not at all. The point of my argument is that it challenges the assumption that equating embryos to unique human beings is logically coherent at all. The properties of embryos are such that for an embryo to be a single unique human being it must also be both a collection of multiple unique human beings and a component of an incomplete unique human being.

"On the philosophical level, what is the process that changes the "recipe and a partial set of ingredients" into "actual unique human beings [that] begin to exist"?"

Gestation and birth.

"Is there some fundamental change in the nature of the embryo? What is the nature of this change?"

Yes. The development of the physical and mental characteristics that define an actual unique human being.

Justin:

I just did address your claim about intent. If you have a rebuttal, I would be interested to see it.

smmtheory:

"As well with the ranting about the moral equivalence of IVF to abortion. You also overlook the fact that so many more abortions are performed compared to the number of attempts to produce children through IVF. The costs for IVF are prohibitive to widespread occurrence. Do you even oppose abortion FatSlim?"

I addressed this earlier. Tens of thousands of American couples use IVF every year. Each IVF procedure typically involves several "cycles." Each cycle typically creates and destroys multiple embryos. You do the math. We're talking about tens or hundreds of thousands of destroyed embryos per year, and it's increasing every year. While IVF may not (yet) cause as many embryos to die as abortion, it's certainly a huge--and growing-- cause of embryonic death. In addition, unlike abortion, there is no constitutional obstacle to banning IVF. So why is it virtually ignored by pro-lifers? And regardless of current political realities, if you believe that embryos are persons, your eventual goal should be to criminalize it as murder, right?

FatSlim: The issue is not the number of "biologically active human organisms," it is the number of entities to which you attach moral significance--"unique human beings" or "unique human lives."

You are correct that the ultimate question is moral, not semantic. My argument was only meant to show that the usual pro-life definition of "unique human beings" is semantically coherent, even in the case of twins and chimeras. I did not attempt to take a position on whether that definition is morally valid.

On the question of chimeras in particular, I suggest that an absolute pro-life position would require the following belief: that to artificially force two identical twin embryos to recombine into a chimera is morally equivalent to abortion.

FatSlim: The point of my argument is that it challenges the assumption that equating embryos to unique human beings is logically coherent at all.

At the risk of being redundant with my previous post, I'll respond to this...

The equation of embryos to human beings is logically coherent within any single instant of time. Inconsistency arises only when we try to decide which embryos have the same identity across a finite interval of time.

Perhaps you hold that clear continuity of identity is essential to the status of "unique human being". I think there are problems with that requirement.

Consider this thought experiment: two living, adult identical twins are in a car accident which destroys the left half one twin's brain and the right half of the other twin's brain. Doctors transplant the surviving half of one twin's brain into the other twin, leaving one survivor with a full brain -- the adult equivalent of a chimera.

After recovery, the survivor finds that he has acquired some memories and personality traits from his late twin brother. He even responds reflexively when the late brother's name is spoken. The question is, is he still the same person as before the accident? Is one twin really dead, or have both twins merged into a single new identity?

Again, I'm only arguing the semantic point here, not the moral point.

Okay FatSlim, have it your way. Since you avoided answering my question of whether or not you actually oppose abortion, I'm going to assume that you actually approve of abortion. Therefore, your ranting about the evils of IVF is a total ruse you are perpetrating and you are in fact not really concerned with whether or not embryos are slaughtered.

Just the same, let me rattle off a few statistics about this issue.

1) The number of abortions performed yearly is about 1,500,000 at a cost of generally less than $250.

2) The number of IVF attempts performed yearly may be about 100,000 at a cost of generally about $12,500.

At about 25% of the annual median income of a US household, IVF is a limited concern due to the small segment of the population that can afford it. With a death rate about 15 times higher (ignoring your artificially inflated numbers for embryo death through IVF) for abortion, a lot of people view it as a higher priority target. Uh, you do know what priority means don't you FatSlim? Since most people have to work for a living FatSlim, that means that a lot of people have to prioritize their time. You do work for a living don't you FatSlim?

Mike S:

"The equation of embryos to human beings is logically coherent within any single instant of time. Inconsistency arises only when we try to decide which embryos have the same identity across a finite interval of time."

I'm not sure what this means. In the case of twins, under the assumption that an embryo is a unique human being, either the two unique human beings that exist after division are both different unique human beings than the one unique human being that existed before division, or one of them is the same as it. If the former, what happened to the original unique human being? And how could it be a unique human being if it was also two unique human beings packaged together in a single embryo? If the latter, where did the second unique human being come from, if not the original embryo? And which one of the post-division unique human beings is the same one as the pre-division unique human being? How could you tell? I don't think there are any credible answers to these questions, which implies that the theory of life you are proposing just isn't coherent.

Mike S:

"Consider this thought experiment: two living, adult identical twins are in a car accident which destroys the left half one twin's brain and the right half of the other twin's brain. Doctors transplant the surviving half of one twin's brain into the other twin, leaving one survivor with a full brain -- the adult equivalent of a chimera."

It isn't the adult equivalent of a chimera. The adult equivalent of a chimera would be the fusion of two adult human beings into a single human being, not the transplant of part of the brain of one into the other.

"After recovery, the survivor finds that he has acquired some memories and personality traits from his late twin brother. He even responds reflexively when the late brother's name is spoken. The question is, is he still the same person as before the accident? "

No, I don't think so.

"Is one twin really dead, or have both twins merged into a single new identity"

One twin has definitely died. The one whose surviving brain tissue was removed from him.

FatSlim: One twin has definitely died. The one whose surviving brain tissue was removed from him.

What if the damage to both twins bodies were more extensive, such that many organs and limbs had to be combined to make a full, viable body? If the surviving patient's body derives about equal tissue mass from each donor twin, which one lived and which one died?

either the two unique human beings that exist after [identical twin embryo] division are both different unique human beings than the one unique human being that existed before division, or one of them is the same as it.

This distinction is irrelevant to the question of whether it is ethical to destroy the embryos in question. Destruction of any of these embryos, before or after division, terminates a viable, biologically human organism.

P.S. I'm Matt T., not Mike S.

Alright, FatSlim. You appear to believe this argument a trump-all, which it is not, so I'll make one further attempt to address it:

In the case of twins, under the assumption that an embryo is a unique human being, either the two unique human beings that exist after division are both different unique human beings than the one unique human being that existed before division, or one of them is the same as it. If the former, what happened to the original unique human being? And how could it be a unique human being if it was also two unique human beings packaged together in a single embryo? If the latter, where did the second unique human being come from, if not the original embryo? And which one of the post-division unique human beings is the same one as the pre-division unique human being? How could you tell? I don't think there are any credible answers to these questions, which implies that the theory of life you are proposing just isn't coherent.

First, perspective: Only a very small minority of births are twins; twinning is abnormal. Furthermore, only for a very small minority of twins (as I understand) is it accurate to see their development as coequal from the same conception — meaning that they divide from the initial fertilized egg in identical proportions. I don't think it's relevant whether we could trace through the twinning process the twin who was original, although being able to do so is not the impossibility that you imply. Moreover, we don't know what triggers twinning, but it does not appear to be written into the original organism in such a way that one could differentiate between an embryo that will twin and one that won't.

Second, language: when pro-lifers speak of a "unique human life," they are generally indicating uniqueness from the parents (thus, e.g., negating their total right to kill it). In a way of looking at things (emphasizing, for example, genetics), even fully grown twins are not "unique" in the sense that most people are. But we understand that they are unique, indicating that something else is the marker of the individual human being.

So, we've got an organism that begins its self-driven development at conception. Most often, it will remain a single organism throughout its life cycle, through development, birth, growth, and death. Sometimes, that organism will beget an identical organism that, at the point of division, will begin its own, distinct, life cycle. So it wouldn't be accurate to say — and it is not the pro-life argument to say — that conception/fertilization is the only event that creates a new human life. Twinning is another; artificial cloning would be a third.

This is why my reference to cloning did address your argument. In a world in which a human being at any stage can be duplicated, every human being is potentially the original of a pair of twins (or more); by your argument, therefore, no "theory of life" that emphasizes the individual human being would be "coherent."

Now, even if we put aside all talk of original twin and the like, from a moral standpoint, it matters not at all whether an embryo is a "unique human life" or, as you call it, a "package" incorporating two or more unique human lives. Either way, human lives are in process and ought not be cut short.

Justin:

First, the comparative rarity of monozygotic twins and chimeras is irrelevant. The proposition I am contesting is that an embryo is a unique human being. It is the fact that embryos are capable of dividing and fusing at all that is the basis of my argument, not how frequently those events occur in actual pregnancies.

“I don't think it's relevant whether we could trace through the twinning process the twin who was original, although being able to do so is not the impossibility that you imply.”

I’d like to know how you think this would be possible, then. I don’t know why you think either of the two embryos created by the division is the same embryo as the one that existed before the division, either. Perhaps you could elaborate.

“This is why my reference to cloning did address your argument. In a world in which a human being at any stage can be duplicated, every human being is potentially the original of a pair of twins (or more); by your argument, therefore, no "theory of life" that emphasizes the individual human being would be "coherent."”

I don’t understand this claim. I agree that human reproductive cloning is possible in principle, and will likely soon be possible in practise. But I do not claim that a cell in one unique human being’s body that could be used to create a new unique human being through cloning is already a unique human being by virtue of that capacity. I believe that a new unique human being would begin to exist only later in the cloning process. So how does the phenomenon of cloning imply what you say about my argument?

“Now, even if we put aside all talk of original twin and the like, from a moral standpoint, it matters not at all whether an embryo is a "unique human life" or, as you call it, a "package" incorporating two or more unique human lives. Either way, human lives are in process and ought not be cut short.”

Of course it matters. An embryo cannot be both a single unique human being and also a package that contains two unique human beings (as in twins), because that’s a contradiction. An embryo cannot be both a single unique human being and also one-half of the single unique human being that will exist after it fuses with another embryo (as in chimeras), because that’s a contradiction too.

I don't know why you think either of the two embryos created by the division is the same embryo as the one that existed before the division, either.

As I understand, it depends when the division occurs. In almost all cases of twins, one could theoretically follow the core of the embryo as it moved into one of the two twins, with the other progressing from separated pieces. Whether at the earliest of stages or subsequently, it is simply a property of very young human life that it can asexually create additional human life (although rarely does).

But I do not claim that a cell in one unique human being’s body that could be used to create a new unique human being through cloning is already a unique human being by virtue of that capacity.

Neither do I. Neither do I consider sperm and egg to be human beings. Once the cell used for cloning has been transformed into an embryo (assuming the term still applies), then it becomes a self-directed human life.

I believe that a new unique human being would begin to exist only later in the cloning process.

And what step in the cloning process bestows humanity?

An embryo cannot be both a single unique human being and also a package that contains two unique human beings (as in twins), because that’s a contradiction.

How about you allow me to argue according to my own boundaries of belief, not the ones that you find convenient to attribute to me? As I've said, it doesn't matter whether the embryo is a single human being or the early stages of two (although I don't think you can tell the two apart). It is one or the other. You're the one insisting on the "single unique human being" language.

Sorry, but it took me a little wake-up time to spot something curious in this:

I do not claim that a cell in one unique human being’s body that could be used to create a new unique human being through cloning is already a unique human being by virtue of that capacity.

Well then, how can you see the fact that a cell (or group of cells) in an embryo might become a twin as a contradiction of the embryo's status as a unique human being? The only difference, it seems to me, is that the embryo has the necessary components to "clone" the cell without requiring external cells or experts to guide the process.

I said,

"On the philosophical level, what is the process that changes the "recipe and a partial set of ingredients" into "actual unique human beings [that] begin to exist"?"

To which FatSlim replied: "Gestation and birth."

Those are biological markers (one of which is an extended period of time). I asked for a philosophical description.

I asked, "Is there some fundamental change in the nature of the embryo? What is the nature of this change?"

To which FatSlim replied, "Yes. The development of the physical and mental characteristics that define an actual unique human being."

Again, these are not philosophical categories, they are biological ones. Since we appear to be stuck on biological characteristics, would you care to elaborate on what these physical and mental characteristics are that define an "actual unique human being"?