Originally posted by blaze8492
The zygote. A genetic human in the earliest stages of its growth with completely unique genetic markers that empirically show it to be a different organism than its mother.

At least half "die" within a short period after fertilization by natural means.

Being genetically unique hardly establishes an organism's entitlement to live inside your body with impunity. Otherwise we'd outlaw Listerine ("kills the germs that cause bad breath"😉, surgery to remove tapeworms, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Originally posted by no1marauder
At least half "die" within a short period after fertilization by natural means.

Being genetically unique hardly establishes an organism's entitlement to live inside your body with impunity. Otherwise we'd outlaw Listerine ("kills the germs that cause bad breath"😉, surgery to remove tapeworms, etc. etc. etc. etc.

And? People die at all points in their development. Why should that disqualify a genetic human being from being granted the rights we traditionally grant to un-developed humans? Remember, humans aren't fully developed until well past the age we allow them to drive cars, drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, etc.

The key words there were "unique genetic human." Germs don't get human rights. Unless, of course, you can prove they are genetically human.

Originally posted by blaze8492
Correction, a lump of cells doesn't have the machinery you subjectively think is required to develop the kind of concern for one's life that you, a fully developed human, expect others to have. Your subjective opinion is all that's in play here.

Since when did consciousness become a pre-requisite for being human? By that logic, anyone who is rendered ...[text shortened]... t was your criteria. Do you get to kill me tomorrow at will now? Am I magically non human now?

There is nothing "subjective" here. The zygote does not have anything resembling a consciousness as far as we can tell using the knowledge we have at our disposal. It may be that a thousand kittens on planet Zor'lax will die when you kill a zygote, but we don't know that nor do we have a reason for believing so; hence we should discard such assumptions when dealing with moral issues at least when it comes to decisions affecting other people.

I didn't say that "consciousness [is] a pre-requisite for being human," rather I would say that any kind of labeling is irrelevant when it comes to moral issues.

Should we kill off everyone who is knocked out?

No, I don't think so. Knocked-out people have a consciousness and typically people who care about them. If they are in a long-term coma with no reasonable expectation they will wake up I'd leave it up to relatives or friends and if none are to be found, pull the plug.

I said I'm incapable of caring about whether or not I die, as that was your criteria (sic).

I don't believe you are incapable of caring about whether or not you die; moreover, it is not a reasonable a priori assumption regarding individual people as opposed to zygotes.

Originally posted by blaze8492
The zygote. A genetic human in the earliest stages of its growth with completely unique genetic markers that empirically show it to be a different organism than its mother.

Actually every single cell in your body is genetically unique.

And every cell in your body has the theoretical potential for being cloned to create a whole new organism.

As for identical twins they share similar DNA, so perhaps we can abort one without worry?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually every single cell in your body is genetically unique.

And every cell in your body has the theoretical potential for being cloned to create a whole new organism.

As for identical twins they share similar DNA, so perhaps we can abort one without worry?

You know exactly what I am referring to. Cloning is completely separate from reproduction, and you know that too.

And identical twins do not share completely the same DNA - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/10/identical-twins-genes_n_2110016.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/health/11real.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical/

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
There is nothing "subjective" here. The zygote does not have anything resembling a consciousness as far as we can tell using the knowledge we have at our disposal. It may be that a thousand kittens on planet Zor'lax will die when you kill a zygote, but we don't know that nor do we have a reason for believing so; hence we should discard such assumptions ...[text shortened]... r, it is not a reasonable a priori assumption regarding individual people as opposed to zygotes.

There absolutely is something subjective here: you are choosing how to define consciousness, and your only benchmark is what you know yourself. Your definition is applicable only within the confines of when its conditions are met, and if its conditions aren't met, the definition isn't relevant. Here, your definition relies on the development of the brain to the point where it can process information in enough of the same manner that you do that you can recognize a shared sense of consciousness. If it doesn't share that development, and again, you've placed this condition on it, your definition is irrelevant.

Knocked out people don't display any form of consciousness in the present moment. In the past, perhaps, but in the moment, they are non-human by your definition. And why define the length of time for the coma? They're not human, not displaying consciousness, at any time during their coma. Why does 1 month more matter? why does an hr more matter? Kill them immediately upon the cessation of their bodies display of consciousness.

You'd be wrong. Regardless, the conditions are analogous. You have two entities which are incapable of caring about their own deaths, and the opportunity to kill them. Neither is fully developed yet, but one is farther along than the other. Only your subjective definitions make a distinction between whether it is right or wrong to kill one or the other.

Originally posted by blaze8492
And? People die at all points in their development. Why should that disqualify a genetic human being from being granted the rights we traditionally grant to un-developed humans? Remember, humans aren't fully developed until well past the age we allow them to drive cars, drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, etc.

The key words there were "unique genetic ...[text shortened]... n." Germs don't get human rights. Unless, of course, you can prove they are genetically human.

I've already answered that question in the other thread; to arbitrarily grant "rights" to a ZEF renders the putative mother's right to self-sovereignity (the most important Natural Right of all) nugatory. ZEF's prior to viability don't get rights either and never have.

Since a ZEF until viability cannot exist outside the mother's body and since she has a right to sovereignity over that body and all it contains (including other genetically unique things) , she may do with it what she wishes.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I've already answered that question in the other thread; to arbitrarily grant "rights" to a ZEF renders the putative mother's right to self-sovereignity (the most important Natural Right of all) nugatory. ZEF's prior to viability don't get rights either and never have.

Since a ZEF until viability cannot exist outside the mother's body and since she ha ...[text shortened]... ll it contains (including other genetically unique things) , she may do with it what she wishes.

The viability outside the body issue is a fun one. An analogous situation: I strip you of all your clothes, and air-drop you into the center of Antarctica. You die in 5 minutes. Are you not human, because you couldn't survive in a sub-optimal climate? Every organism in existence requires an environment in which it can survive, and when you remove that environment, they die. Does that magically render them as non-members of their species?

As to the "arbitrary" granting of "rights," it's not arbitrary when a widely regarded document with hundreds of countries as signatories guarantee a "right to life." Since the ZEF is not actually part of the mother's body, and represents a unique human, doesn't it deserve the right to self-sovereignty?

Originally posted by blaze8492
The viability outside the body issue is a fun one. An analogous situation: I strip you of all your clothes, and air-drop you into the center of Antarctica. You die in 5 minutes. Are you not human, because you couldn't survive in a sub-optimal climate? Every organism in existence requires an environment in which it can survive, and when you remove that ...[text shortened]... mother's body, and represents a unique human, doesn't it deserve the right to self-sovereignty?

The analogy fails because a ZEF has never been capable of independent existence, while the person dropped in Antarctica has.

You keep trying to change the subject; whether a ZEF is "part of a woman's body" is irrelevant; it is wholly contained within that body and cannot be granted "rights" without negating the woman's basic right to self-sovereignity. What a ZEF is or isn't is besides the point; it is no more "unique" than the germs that kill bad breath or a tapeworm as already pointed out. If it was granted "rights", the woman would be subject to all types of invasive laws and regulations restricting her freedom in the name of "protecting" the ZEF's "rights". This is offensive to any concept of liberty.

Originally posted by blaze8492
There absolutely is something subjective here: you are choosing how to define consciousness, and your only benchmark is what you know yourself. Your definition is applicable only within the confines of when its conditions are met, and if its conditions aren't met, the definition isn't relevant. Here, your definition relies on the development of the brai ...[text shortened]... ve definitions make a distinction between whether it is right or wrong to kill one or the other.

I am not "choosing" to define consciousness; I am merely noting that a zygote doesn't care whether it is killed or not. This observation is in no reasonable dispute given what we know about zygotes.

In the past, perhaps, but in the moment, they are non-human by your definition.

Re-read what I wrote - I specifically said that whether you call something "human" is irrelevant.

You'd be wrong.

About what?

Originally posted by no1marauder
The analogy fails because a ZEF has never been capable of independent existence, while the person dropped in Antarctica has.

You keep trying to change the subject; whether a ZEF is "part of a woman's body" is irrelevant; it is wholly contained within that body and cannot be granted "rights" without negating the woman's basic right to self-sovereignit ...[text shortened]... dom in the name of "protecting" the ZEF's "rights". This is offensive to any concept of liberty.

Whether or not it was ever capable of independent existence is irrelevant. What you do, when you remove a zygote from the womb, is place it in a sub-optimal environment. You furthermore do not give it any help, or assistance, or allow it a proper chance for survival, unless you place it in an environment which is conducive to its development. Likewise, when I strip you of all your clothes and anything you could use to fend for yourself, I have placed you in the exact same situation: an environment which is sub-optimal, with nothing you can do to care for yourself or survive. The analogy is just fine.

Who gvae you the right to determine that a human being contained in another human being's body is devoid of all rights traditionally determined to be applicable to a human being? You don't get to decide that for anyone, at any stage of development. The child does not infringe upon her right to self-sovereignty, and her right to self-sovereignty does not get to infringe upon the child's right to life. The Right to Life supersedes right to self-sovereignty, since without life, self-sovereignty doesn't exist.

It is absolutely more unique than germs that kill bad breath. You're ludicrous if you think that it's appropriate on any scientific or objective level to equate a zygote to germs.

What is offensive to any concept of liberty is the position that, based on subjective qualifiers that may change at any time on your own whims, rights may be arbitrarily granted or taken away for your own convenience. That is the height of arrogance and offensive to any form of liberty.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I am not "choosing" to define consciousness; I am merely noting that a zygote doesn't care whether it is killed or not. This observation is in no reasonable dispute given what we know about zygotes.

[b]In the past, perhaps, but in the moment, they are non-human by your definition.

Re-read what I wrote - I specifically said that whether you call something "human" is irrelevant.

You'd be wrong.

About what?[/b]

You are, in fact, because in order to note that, you must appeal to your specified definition of consciousness.

You'd be wrong about whether or not I am incapable of caring about my own death.

Originally posted by blaze8492
You are, in fact, because in order to note that, you must appeal to your specified definition of consciousness.

You'd be wrong about whether or not I am incapable of caring about my own death.

I'm appealing to specific properties that are often associated with consciousness. Ability to feel pain, awareness of surroundings, self-awareness, etc. Zygotes have none of these properties. They don't care about anything, hence they have no interests that need to be protected.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I'm appealing to specific properties that are often associated with consciousness. Ability to feel pain, awareness of surroundings, self-awareness, etc. Zygotes have none of these properties. They don't care about anything, hence they have no interests that need to be protected.

You're appealing to specific properties that are often associated with consciousness for adult humans, or humans at a particular stage in development. To impose those conditions upon a human who has not reached the requisite stages of development for those conditions to be applicable is hardly scientific, and it is definitely not rigorous. It is not appropriate to impose conditions which are defined under a certain set of criteria upon something which that criteria cannot apply to. You are, in effect, placing the condition that in order to be considered human, you must reach a certain stage in development, and that is the imposition of subjective conditions upon what it means to be considered humans. Why that stage? Why not any other stage? You can't prove objectively that one stage of development is preferable to the other for any reason when i comes to defining how rights are allocated, the only reason you have is convenience for the imposition of your opinion on others.

Originally posted by blaze8492
Whether or not it was ever capable of independent existence is irrelevant. What you do, when you remove a zygote from the womb, is place it in a sub-optimal environment. You furthermore do not give it any help, or assistance, or allow it a proper chance for survival, unless you place it in an environment which is conducive to its development. Likewise, ...[text shortened]... for your own convenience. That is the height of arrogance and offensive to any form of liberty.

I can't help feeling this thread has strayed off topic a little.

I don't think that that any given right depends on one being alive entails that the right to life necessarily has priority over any other given right. There's an is-ought problem going on with that claim. Rape is a crime against self-sovereignty, I think that enough people would regard a woman using lethal force to defend herself against an attack by a rapist as justified in violating his right to life to preserve her right to self-sovereignty that it is at least unclear which right has priority. So I think your claim that the right to life has priority over the right to self-sovereignty or any other fundamental right requires better justification.