One question. The answer makes all the difference.
Comments
I can tell you what it's not: a "human being" in a way anyone would recognize. It lacks almost all of the traits that we'd recognize as human. It has human DNA -- not necessarily even unique DNA, as in the case of identical twins -- but that's about it.
So, essentially, it is what it is: a blastocyst, an embryo, a fetus, depending on the stage of development.
Not a human being? You said it has human DNA and it is a distinct thing ... that kinda sounds like a being that's human.
blastocyst / embryo / fetus / infant / toddler / adolescent / teen / young adult / middle aged / old aged
... those are adjectives that qualify the stage of development of a thing ...
The question is, what is the thing?
You said it was a thing with human DNA versus goldfish DNA, for instance. Just so we are being clear, it is not a goldfish embryo that we are discussing or a zebra embryo or an elephant embryo.
It is a human embryo.
So, the embryo is a very small human thing that is on the way toward becoming a human fetus thing.
What normally happens to human embryos when they are healthy and mom is healthy and no one intervenes?
"What normally happens to human embryos when they are healthy and mom is healthy and no one intervenes?"
About 75% of the time, the embryo is spontaneously aborted.
In any case, yes, we're talking about a human embryo. So what? This is not the same thing as a human /being/, at least not as most people understand the term, and as is illustrated by the cryo-tank example I gave in the other thread.
When women give birth to stillborn babies, they almost always name them, have funerals, etc. When women have miscarraiges within the first four or five months of a pregnancy, they rarely do this. Why is that? I submit that they instinctively know the two are not the same thing.
So a "human being" is defined as only that which looks (can be recognized as) human? Just what traits define "human" and who decides? Who says that human DNA does not define a human being? What other life form starts off with human DNA and becomes something else?
And tqirsch, 75% sounds unlikely high. Your evidence please?
Posted by: The Interface | February 18, 2010 at 12:04
Human DNA is a necessary but not sufficient condition for human life. Contrary to what abortion opponents often argue, that DNA need not be unique (e.g., identical twins). But you can also have a complete set of human DNA inside you that is distinct from your own, and that doesn't necessarily imply you have another "life" inside you. For example, my father-in-law's heart has DNA which is completely different from his own, and has been thus for over 5 years now. Anybody who has ever had a blood transfusion has a complete, distinct set of human DNA inside them, at least for a time.
So clearly "human DNA," or even "a complete set of human DNA," is not the sole defining factor of what it means to be a "human being."
An embryo implanted in the uterine lining of a fertile woman of reproductive age has the potential to grow INTO a human being (or to BECOME one, to use your word), but it isn't one yet.
As for the 75% figure, I'm having trouble digging up the study, but it estimated that the natural implantation failure rate of blastocysts is 75-80%. In that event, you have a fertilized egg that has cell divided several times and started growing, and has distinct human DNA; if it fails to implant, it is ejected without the woman's knowledge that it ever even happened.
But even setting aside that rate, per Wikipedia, 25% of /detectable/ pregnancies end in miscarriage within the first 6 weeks.
I can always sense when a thread has run its course ... and we are now there.
The important question to ask when killing something, is what exactly are we killing.
In the case of the embryo, the science is in.
An embryo is a living, whole, human organism (a human being) in the embryonic stage. All the embryo needs to live is a proper environment and adequate nutrition, the very same thing all infants, toddlers, adolescents, and adults need.
For those interested and a far more advanced version of this debate, check out this interesting exchange.
# Are Stem Cells Babies? (Ronald Bailey opens the exchange)
I can tell you what it's not: a "human being" in a way anyone would recognize. It lacks almost all of the traits that we'd recognize as human. It has human DNA -- not necessarily even unique DNA, as in the case of identical twins -- but that's about it.
So, essentially, it is what it is: a blastocyst, an embryo, a fetus, depending on the stage of development.
Posted by: tgirsch | February 17, 2010 at 22:20
Not a human being? You said it has human DNA and it is a distinct thing ... that kinda sounds like a being that's human.
blastocyst / embryo / fetus / infant / toddler / adolescent / teen / young adult / middle aged / old aged
... those are adjectives that qualify the stage of development of a thing ...
The question is, what is the thing?
You said it was a thing with human DNA versus goldfish DNA, for instance. Just so we are being clear, it is not a goldfish embryo that we are discussing or a zebra embryo or an elephant embryo.
It is a human embryo.
So, the embryo is a very small human thing that is on the way toward becoming a human fetus thing.
What normally happens to human embryos when they are healthy and mom is healthy and no one intervenes?
Posted by: Mr. D | February 18, 2010 at 06:22
"What normally happens to human embryos when they are healthy and mom is healthy and no one intervenes?"
About 75% of the time, the embryo is spontaneously aborted.
In any case, yes, we're talking about a human embryo. So what? This is not the same thing as a human /being/, at least not as most people understand the term, and as is illustrated by the cryo-tank example I gave in the other thread.
When women give birth to stillborn babies, they almost always name them, have funerals, etc. When women have miscarraiges within the first four or five months of a pregnancy, they rarely do this. Why is that? I submit that they instinctively know the two are not the same thing.
Posted by: tgirsch | February 18, 2010 at 10:32
So a "human being" is defined as only that which looks (can be recognized as) human? Just what traits define "human" and who decides? Who says that human DNA does not define a human being? What other life form starts off with human DNA and becomes something else?
And tqirsch, 75% sounds unlikely high. Your evidence please?
Posted by: The Interface | February 18, 2010 at 12:04
Human DNA is a necessary but not sufficient condition for human life. Contrary to what abortion opponents often argue, that DNA need not be unique (e.g., identical twins). But you can also have a complete set of human DNA inside you that is distinct from your own, and that doesn't necessarily imply you have another "life" inside you. For example, my father-in-law's heart has DNA which is completely different from his own, and has been thus for over 5 years now. Anybody who has ever had a blood transfusion has a complete, distinct set of human DNA inside them, at least for a time.
So clearly "human DNA," or even "a complete set of human DNA," is not the sole defining factor of what it means to be a "human being."
An embryo implanted in the uterine lining of a fertile woman of reproductive age has the potential to grow INTO a human being (or to BECOME one, to use your word), but it isn't one yet.
As for the 75% figure, I'm having trouble digging up the study, but it estimated that the natural implantation failure rate of blastocysts is 75-80%. In that event, you have a fertilized egg that has cell divided several times and started growing, and has distinct human DNA; if it fails to implant, it is ejected without the woman's knowledge that it ever even happened.
But even setting aside that rate, per Wikipedia, 25% of /detectable/ pregnancies end in miscarriage within the first 6 weeks.
Posted by: tgirsch | February 19, 2010 at 00:14
re: "In any case, yes, we're talking about a human embryo. So what?"
Are there any humans in the adult stage of development that have skipped the embryonic stage of development?
Posted by: Mr. D | February 19, 2010 at 07:23
Are there any humans in the adult stage of development that didn't start off as separate sperm and ovum?
Posted by: tgirsch | February 21, 2010 at 17:32
I can always sense when a thread has run its course ... and we are now there.
The important question to ask when killing something, is what exactly are we killing.
In the case of the embryo, the science is in.
An embryo is a living, whole, human organism (a human being) in the embryonic stage. All the embryo needs to live is a proper environment and adequate nutrition, the very same thing all infants, toddlers, adolescents, and adults need.
For those interested and a far more advanced version of this debate, check out this interesting exchange.
# Are Stem Cells Babies? (Ronald Bailey opens the exchange)
http://www.reason.com/rb/rb071101.html
# Reason, Science, and Stem Cells (Lee and George reply to Bailey)
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-george072001.shtml
# My Critics are Wrong (Bailey replies to Lee and George)
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-bailey072501.shtml
# The Stubborn Facts of Science (Lee and George reply to Bailey)
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-george073001.shtml
# More Stubborn Facts of Science (Bailey responds to Lee and George)
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-bailey080601.shtml
# Embryology, Philosophy, and Human Dignity: Ronald Bailey is still Wrong (Lee and George reply to Bailey)
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-lee080901.shtml
# Cellular Truths (Lee and George, continued)
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-leeprint091001.html
Posted by: Mr. D | February 22, 2010 at 17:43