Frozen embryos are people

[Jazzy]

Statement: Frozen embryos are people and you can be held legally responsible if you destroy them, according to the Alabama Supreme Court.

Debate Question: Do you agree or disagree frozen embryos are people and why?

 

[tango]

I'm honestly not sure where I stand on the issue of exactly when life begins. I'm not sure I fully agree with the idea that it begins at conception but am equally unhappy at the idea it doesn't begin until birth.

Logically if you believe that life begins at conception then you must accept that frozen embryos are people. If you don't believe that life begins at conception then an embryo isn't necessarily a person.

If an embryo is a person then abortion is, by definition, homicide. I didn't use the word murder simply because if we want to get into legal technicalities terminating something like an ectopic pregnancy could be seen as an act of self-defense.

I fear we're going to see a few rulings along these lines that create an endless stream of problems based on the concept that one size doesn't necessarily fit all circumstances.

 

[Josiah]

I agree.


.

 

[Forgiven1]

I agree that the frozen embryos are human.

Did you know that these days, people will put their frozen embryos up for adoption?

I know of a person who did this. It is another way for people to approach infertility.

 

[fuddy]

If a frozen human embryo isn't human, why is it called a frozen HUMAN embryo??
If left to fully develop, will what emerges be a fully formed cupcake, or brake shoe, or can of cranberry sauce?

 

[Lamb]

If a frozen human embryo isn't human, why is it called a frozen HUMAN embryo??
If left to fully develop, will what emerges be a fully formed cupcake, or brake shoe, or can of cranberry sauce?

That's very logical! I totally agree!

 

[Faith]

Statement: Frozen embryos are people and you can be held legally responsible if you destroy them, according to the Alabama Supreme Court.

Debate Question: Do you agree or disagree frozen embryos are people and why?

I agree, because living beings have to start somewhere

 

[Krissy Cakes]

If a frozen human embryo isn't human, why is it called a frozen HUMAN embryo??
If left to fully develop, will what emerges be a fully formed cupcake, or brake shoe, or can of cranberry sauce?

I fully agree!

 

[Mercury]

If a frozen human embryo isn't human, why is it called a frozen HUMAN embryo??
If left to fully develop, will what emerges be a fully formed cupcake, or brake shoe, or can of cranberry sauce?

Terminology is important here and your statements conflate various issues I'm afraid. Let's pick through it.

First and foremost the term HUMAN refers to SPECIES, nothing more nothing less.

Life forms have DNA. If you have Human DNA then you are a human, a member of the human genus Homo sapiens

Let's now examine Human lifeforms.

A male sperm contains human DNA. It is therefore of species Human, Homo sapiens.

A female egg also contains human DNA. It too is therefore of species Human, Homo sapiens.

We can be clear and sensible and realise that neither a sperm nor an egg is a human person. To suggest otherwise would be a complete nonsense and to fail to understand the basic attributes and requirements of personhood.

Sperm and eggs are living organisms which are of the Human species but which are patently not people.

Most of the sane world understands this rather simple distinction between what is simply a living organism and what is an actual person though sadly there exists a small contingency that just don't and who think a sperm is an actual person, ridiculous as that clearly is.

If you've reached this point of understanding thus far, then the rest isn't so difficult.

Sperm and eggs are not people.

Put a sperm and an egg in proximity with each other and they are still not people.

Allow a sperm to fertilise an egg and they still are not people. They are two living organisms of species Homo sapiens that have joined together.

So what then constitutes an actual human PERSON rather than just a living organism of species Homo sapiens?

What constitures personhood?

To help us let's examine the case of a fully developed adult human that has suffered a catastrophic illness and is now 100% brain dead and whose human body/shell is unable to support itself to live without the aid of an external mechanical apparatus. The brain does not function, there is no capacity to think or dream or emote or interact with external life.

What then do we have in that scenario?

I submit that you have the physical shell body of a former human person but the person is not longer there.

It's not at all imo difficult to draw a simple line here to define a human carcass alone as NOT being a human person.

It is not the physical human carcass that constitutes a person or personhood, for were that the case we would have to accept that every decesased body lying in graves around the world was still a person and thus had lots of human rights. The notion is patently absurd.

So if the human body itself does not of itself define personhood then what does?

There are perhaps many things we could think of here:

- the ability to function and live and survive on ones own without exterior support
- the ability to think, engage in brain neuron activity
- the ability to emote
- the ability to feel pain

and so on.

There are deeper discussions to be had on all the above, however they really aren't particularly necessary because we can see that at its heart, the presence of a functioning brain, is an absolute foundational requirement of personhood. If there is no brain then there is no ability to survive and live and actually be a human being, there is only a brain dead carcass.

Hence in the context of the ever popular and diviisive abortion debate and all things related, really the most important thing we need to focus on is whether there exists a functioning brain.

No brain = no person, no personhood

This established then, all we need to know is whether a developing human lifeform, be it foetus, embryo, blastocyst etc etc has a brain.

Until it has developed a brain then clearly we do not have a person and therefore human rights do not apply.

We would not apply human rights to a deceased human.

We should likewise not apply human rights to a developing lifeform that does not have a brain.

Whether the lifeform is frozen or not is imo irrellevant.

The crucial matter is how far has the development progressed.

 

[fuddy]

But then you have another dilemma - if brain function determines our humanity, then are less intelligent people less human than more intelligent ones? That could take you to all sorts of slippery places.

 

[Mercury]

But then you have another dilemma - if brain function determines our humanity, then are less intelligent people less human than more intelligent ones? That could take you to all sorts of slippery places.

You've misunderstood my post I fear.

It's a total lack of a physical brain or total lack of brain function that means there is no person.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

- the ability to function and live and survive on ones own without exterior support

People with spinal muscular atrophy exist.

- the ability to think, engage in brain neuron activity

People with severe mental retardation, people in comas etc. exist

- the ability to emote

People with severe autism exist.

- the ability to feel pain

People with congenital analgesia exist.

the presence of a functioning brain, is an absolute foundational requirement of personhood. If there is no brain then there is no ability to survive and live and actually be a human being, there is only a brain dead carcass.

What you define as a braindead carcass is a human being. If you entered a hospital room and killed a person in a coma, you'd be charged with murder.

Hence in the context of the ever popular and diviisive abortion debate and all things related, really the most important thing we need to focus on is whether there exists a functioning brain.

No brain = no person, no personhood

I could not disagree more. No brain means no ability for the personhood to manifest, but the soul still exists within the body. As long as the human body has a pulse, it's a living human being.

 

[tango]

You've misunderstood my post I fear.

It's a total lack of a physical brain or total lack of brain function that means there is no person.

Existence of a physical brain isn't a useful determinant, because dead people still have a physical brain.

Presence of brain function is only marginally useful because people in a persistent vegetative state may have minimal brain function but are still human, and all sorts of creatures have brain function without being human.

It's perhaps more useful to determine what metrics we use at the end of life to determine when life has actually ended, and use something similar to determine when life has begun.

 

[Mercury]

People with spinal muscular atrophy exist.

People with severe mental retardation, people in comas etc. exist

People with severe autism exist.

People with congenital analgesia exist.

What you define as a braindead carcass is a human being. If you entered a hospital room and killed a person in a coma, you'd be charged with murder.

I could not disagree more. No brain means no ability for the personhood to manifest, but the soul still exists within the body. As long as the human body has a pulse, it's a living human being.

You're creating your own straw man and trying to argue it.

I said in my first post that the list of things I mentioned (which you'ev listed in your response) were all worthy of deeper discussion.

The fact is that in all the cases you've cited THERE IS brain function. There's brain function in spinal muscular atrophy, in people with Comas, with severe autism, and congenital analgesia. So none of those conditions factor in what I have suggested. ALL those people you cited there ARE human persons because they all have a functioning brain.

It's the life forms that have absolutely no brain function at all that are simply physical bodies and thus no longer have any personhood.

 

[Mercury]

Existence of a physical brain isn't a useful determinant, because dead people still have a physical brain.

You're mis-using my definition.

The definition is a FUNCTIONING brain.

Dead people don't have a functioning brain. Ergo they are not human persons any longer

Developing foetuses in the first few weeks do not have a brain at all and thus are not human persons

Presence of brain function is only marginally useful because people in a persistent vegetative state may have minimal brain function but are still human, and all sorts of creatures have brain function without being human.

A total lack of brain function means that the human person no longer exists.

If there is partial brain function then there is still a person

It's perhaps more useful to determine what metrics we use at the end of life to determine when life has actually ended, and use something similar to determine when life has begun.

That's not difficult. Life has ended when a life form can no longer stay alive without external assistance.

 

[tango]

You're mis-using my definition.

The definition is a FUNCTIONING brain.

Dead people don't have a functioning brain. Ergo they are not human persons any longer

Developing foetuses in the first few weeks do not have a brain at all and thus are not human persons




A total lack of brain function means that the human person no longer exists.

If there is partial brain function then there is still a person

This is at least part way towards the idea of determining when life ends and when life begins, using some sense of balance. But then you go on to this...

That's not difficult. Life has ended when a life form can no longer stay alive without external assistance.

So a person on a life support machine is not alive?

 

[Mercury]

So a person on a life support machine is not alive?

IF the brain is dead then yes they are not alive. The physical carcass is being kept artificially functional, so the person is dead, the body is kept ticking. This is why people stop giving CPR when it becomes obvious that the brain has gone even though they could keep artificially pumping the heart.

 

[tango]

IF the brain is dead then yes they are not alive. The physical carcass is being kept artificially functional, so the person is dead, the body is kept ticking. This is why people stop giving CPR when it becomes obvious that the brain has gone even though they could keep artificially pumping the heart.

Now you're shifting the goalposts. Earlier you said that "life has ended when a life form can no longer stay alive without external assistance". The person on life support may have brain function but be unable to stay alive without the assistance of the machines. The point of the machines is to keep them alive while they recover from whatever created the need for life support.

You'd almost be forgiven for thinking this is a complex issue.

 

[Mercury]

Now you're shifting the goalposts. Earlier you said that "life has ended when a life form can no longer stay alive without external assistance".

Taken out of context (just like many Bible verses) you'd be right but I've said throughout that we're talking about zero brain functionality and that's the context you're ignoring here.

If there's brain function then whatever the circumstances, coma, life support machine whatever then you still have a human person.

No brain function or no brain = no person

 

[fuddy]

"We should likewise not apply human rights to a developing life form that does not have a brain."

Ok, so no brain, not human..... yet. But if left to develop, it will soon become human, at which point it WILL have human rights. And by messing around with it you're robbing it of its potential humanity.