Tydeus
12-05-2006, 04:05 PM
OK, so, the thread's title explains itself. Yes, this could very quickly become nasty, but I realize what I said in the stem-cell thread was false -- there is some room to logically debate the nature of embryos in reference to human life.
And, I'd like to say that if the mods feel this can't go anywhere helpful, I totally understand. I think it could be fine, but I understand how high a probability there is that it won't. I'll try to do my best to set the tone by being as civil and un-flamelike as I can.
Let me briefly preface everything from here on with this: This is all my opinion. Not fact. I would never assert it as fact. I think I'm right, and I think I have good reasons, but since this is a thread for discussion/debate, everyone should assume that claims made are opinions, though there are generally stated as facts in the persuasive form of writing. Debate is of course, the stating of opinions, and the use of reason/logic and factual evidence to determine which opinion seems closer to the truth. With that said...
Anyway, the whole embryo=person thing relies on the concept of potentiality. (I'm just gonna ignore religious dogma (and I mean that literally, not as a pejorative. Like Catholic Dogma) in this argument here, because that's a personal thing, and I've got no right nor reason to intrude on that. So, I'm just gonna assume everyone who participates in this thread comes at this from a strictly logical perspective, with no emotion informing anything. Obviously, this is inaccurate, but I feel it must be assumed for a debate that won't fall apart)
So, my argument then, is with the flaws of potentiality, and how it, logically breaks down rather quickly. First of all, let us consider that roughly 1/3 of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Yes, a full third. That seems like a large number because most of the time the embryo is simply flushed the next time the mother menstruates, along with the uterine lining. The mother never even knows. So, even if an embryo implants on the uterine lining, certainty of life is not guaranteed. This is the first flaw of potentiality -- if one potentiality is to be considered, all must be considered, and there are many unpleasant potentialities. Almost anything we do may result in the death of ourselves or another, but we do it anyway, because we do not strictly base our actions on potentiality. Of course, probability aids in this, but for an embryo, life is far from guaranteed. The odds are in favor of success, but not by a large margin.
Second argument against potentiality -- there is no logical distinction that I know of between any form of potential life. An embryo is no different from an egg or a sperm -- all hold potential. The embryo may hold more potential, but that is no reason that egg and sperm should be let off the hook, in the potentialist's argument.
To logically follow through with the argument of potentiality, to fully utilize all potential life, contraceptives may not be used. Masturbation (for males) is similarly unethical, at least most of the time. On occasion, the argument could be made for perhaps weekly (maybe even semi-weekly) masturbation, in order to keep the testes and prostate healthy and functional, and since most sperm only live about 72 hours anyway (another natural and enormous waste of potential life).
But, truly, we must go further. From a logical standpoint, the potential for life is not truly tied to a physical thing. Potential of life may exist without a physical carrier, though physical carriers may posess the potential for life. Does that make sense? Example: between any fertile man and woman, there is potential for life. The potential is placed in the physical gametes of the two individuals, but also may be attached to more ephemeral carriers -- the relationship itself, the couple's sex drive, their desire to have a child, their economic means to support children, etc. The potential for life exists in many things, some of which are not concrete, physical objects. However, all this potentiality rests on equal footing, from a logical standpoint.
This means that then fertility drugs must be used by all women attempting to become pregnant, in the hopes that they will bear more than one child. Using this widely-available technology, the yield of human life could be dramatically increased in each pregnancy. With scientific dedication to the advancement of fertility (spurred by a society and government truly devoted to potential life), average number of children borne in a single pregnancy could easily reach three, four, five.
See, potentiality really does apply to this scenario. There is no difference in potential between the potential baby resultant from the embryo, and the potential baby resultant from fertility drugs. Neither baby exists phsyically, it is still potential. Though a blastocyst may have phsyical form, it is no way a baby, by any scientific distinction of a human being. (remember here that I am assuming that everyone here who believes that embryos are babies/human beings relies on the argument of potentiality. To believe that an embryo is a baby, in the here-and-now, physically, is to rely on the concept of a soul. Thus, I am ignoring that argument, so as not to debate the legitimacy of the soul).
Thus, the potential baby is really nothing more than an idea in our heads. Without sapient human beings around to contemplate it, the potential child does not exist. But, if we do value potentiality, then all potential children are equal, no matter the source. Fertility drugs, embryos, whatever.
Furthermore, any time a female is of child-bearin age, she is wasting eggs if not pregnant. Thus, all fertile women, as soon as they become fertile (and are old enough to safely bear children, which would for most girls not be until they are at least eleven or twelve), must bear children, or potential is wasted. They must all take fertility drugs.
Beyond that, we can go even further -- scientific effort to accelerate human growth, to arrive at sexual maturation at a younger age, thereby creating more potential. If this field is not explored by hordes of scientists, funded with truly massive budgets, then potential is wasted. The same goes for reducing the time it takes for a fetus to germinate in the mother, and extending fertility into old age. All these scientific possibilities must be pursued, or potential children are left to languish in our minds, unfulfilled as realities.
Approaching the end now, men could be made to bear children. The first successful womb transplant was just performed, and wombs could theoretically be transplanted into men from any woman who dies but leaves functional reproductive organs behind. Babies would be removed by Caesarian section. This is another scientific possibility that demands research, or potentiality is wasted. Potential for bearing life, then, extends for women beyond death. Oh, and we must all be organ donors, in order to save more lives. Our organs all have the potential to enable life after we die. We must also all donate blood regularly, and preventative healthcare must be pursued almost fanatically by all individuals in order to ensure maximum lifespan. Everyone's diet must be rich in nutrients and low-calorie (low-calorie diets, from 1600 to as little as 1200 calories per day have been shown to significantly increase lifespan). Maximum lifespan must be a goal, as more time alive means more time to reprodue. All instruments of killing would have to be removed from society. Total peace.
Further, the government would have to pursue opportunities to raise children without dependance on parents whatsoever. Animal wombs, artificial wombs, anything of the sort must be pursued, and, if achieved, immediately put into practice at full capacity to ensure that no potential is wasted.
This is the end result of the potentialist argument for life. It is, obviously, absurd. However, the logic remains unbroken throughout the whole train of thought. The assumptions, values, criteria for decision making, all remain the same. Thus, as far as I can tell, the potentialist argument is invalid.
Human life, then, is only that which is. Humans are humans, and potential humans are just ideas that we sometimes mentally attach to physical carriers. It's merely a misconception.
And, I'd like to say that if the mods feel this can't go anywhere helpful, I totally understand. I think it could be fine, but I understand how high a probability there is that it won't. I'll try to do my best to set the tone by being as civil and un-flamelike as I can.
Let me briefly preface everything from here on with this: This is all my opinion. Not fact. I would never assert it as fact. I think I'm right, and I think I have good reasons, but since this is a thread for discussion/debate, everyone should assume that claims made are opinions, though there are generally stated as facts in the persuasive form of writing. Debate is of course, the stating of opinions, and the use of reason/logic and factual evidence to determine which opinion seems closer to the truth. With that said...
Anyway, the whole embryo=person thing relies on the concept of potentiality. (I'm just gonna ignore religious dogma (and I mean that literally, not as a pejorative. Like Catholic Dogma) in this argument here, because that's a personal thing, and I've got no right nor reason to intrude on that. So, I'm just gonna assume everyone who participates in this thread comes at this from a strictly logical perspective, with no emotion informing anything. Obviously, this is inaccurate, but I feel it must be assumed for a debate that won't fall apart)
So, my argument then, is with the flaws of potentiality, and how it, logically breaks down rather quickly. First of all, let us consider that roughly 1/3 of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Yes, a full third. That seems like a large number because most of the time the embryo is simply flushed the next time the mother menstruates, along with the uterine lining. The mother never even knows. So, even if an embryo implants on the uterine lining, certainty of life is not guaranteed. This is the first flaw of potentiality -- if one potentiality is to be considered, all must be considered, and there are many unpleasant potentialities. Almost anything we do may result in the death of ourselves or another, but we do it anyway, because we do not strictly base our actions on potentiality. Of course, probability aids in this, but for an embryo, life is far from guaranteed. The odds are in favor of success, but not by a large margin.
Second argument against potentiality -- there is no logical distinction that I know of between any form of potential life. An embryo is no different from an egg or a sperm -- all hold potential. The embryo may hold more potential, but that is no reason that egg and sperm should be let off the hook, in the potentialist's argument.
To logically follow through with the argument of potentiality, to fully utilize all potential life, contraceptives may not be used. Masturbation (for males) is similarly unethical, at least most of the time. On occasion, the argument could be made for perhaps weekly (maybe even semi-weekly) masturbation, in order to keep the testes and prostate healthy and functional, and since most sperm only live about 72 hours anyway (another natural and enormous waste of potential life).
But, truly, we must go further. From a logical standpoint, the potential for life is not truly tied to a physical thing. Potential of life may exist without a physical carrier, though physical carriers may posess the potential for life. Does that make sense? Example: between any fertile man and woman, there is potential for life. The potential is placed in the physical gametes of the two individuals, but also may be attached to more ephemeral carriers -- the relationship itself, the couple's sex drive, their desire to have a child, their economic means to support children, etc. The potential for life exists in many things, some of which are not concrete, physical objects. However, all this potentiality rests on equal footing, from a logical standpoint.
This means that then fertility drugs must be used by all women attempting to become pregnant, in the hopes that they will bear more than one child. Using this widely-available technology, the yield of human life could be dramatically increased in each pregnancy. With scientific dedication to the advancement of fertility (spurred by a society and government truly devoted to potential life), average number of children borne in a single pregnancy could easily reach three, four, five.
See, potentiality really does apply to this scenario. There is no difference in potential between the potential baby resultant from the embryo, and the potential baby resultant from fertility drugs. Neither baby exists phsyically, it is still potential. Though a blastocyst may have phsyical form, it is no way a baby, by any scientific distinction of a human being. (remember here that I am assuming that everyone here who believes that embryos are babies/human beings relies on the argument of potentiality. To believe that an embryo is a baby, in the here-and-now, physically, is to rely on the concept of a soul. Thus, I am ignoring that argument, so as not to debate the legitimacy of the soul).
Thus, the potential baby is really nothing more than an idea in our heads. Without sapient human beings around to contemplate it, the potential child does not exist. But, if we do value potentiality, then all potential children are equal, no matter the source. Fertility drugs, embryos, whatever.
Furthermore, any time a female is of child-bearin age, she is wasting eggs if not pregnant. Thus, all fertile women, as soon as they become fertile (and are old enough to safely bear children, which would for most girls not be until they are at least eleven or twelve), must bear children, or potential is wasted. They must all take fertility drugs.
Beyond that, we can go even further -- scientific effort to accelerate human growth, to arrive at sexual maturation at a younger age, thereby creating more potential. If this field is not explored by hordes of scientists, funded with truly massive budgets, then potential is wasted. The same goes for reducing the time it takes for a fetus to germinate in the mother, and extending fertility into old age. All these scientific possibilities must be pursued, or potential children are left to languish in our minds, unfulfilled as realities.
Approaching the end now, men could be made to bear children. The first successful womb transplant was just performed, and wombs could theoretically be transplanted into men from any woman who dies but leaves functional reproductive organs behind. Babies would be removed by Caesarian section. This is another scientific possibility that demands research, or potentiality is wasted. Potential for bearing life, then, extends for women beyond death. Oh, and we must all be organ donors, in order to save more lives. Our organs all have the potential to enable life after we die. We must also all donate blood regularly, and preventative healthcare must be pursued almost fanatically by all individuals in order to ensure maximum lifespan. Everyone's diet must be rich in nutrients and low-calorie (low-calorie diets, from 1600 to as little as 1200 calories per day have been shown to significantly increase lifespan). Maximum lifespan must be a goal, as more time alive means more time to reprodue. All instruments of killing would have to be removed from society. Total peace.
Further, the government would have to pursue opportunities to raise children without dependance on parents whatsoever. Animal wombs, artificial wombs, anything of the sort must be pursued, and, if achieved, immediately put into practice at full capacity to ensure that no potential is wasted.
This is the end result of the potentialist argument for life. It is, obviously, absurd. However, the logic remains unbroken throughout the whole train of thought. The assumptions, values, criteria for decision making, all remain the same. Thus, as far as I can tell, the potentialist argument is invalid.
Human life, then, is only that which is. Humans are humans, and potential humans are just ideas that we sometimes mentally attach to physical carriers. It's merely a misconception.