Ok, let’s take “life begins at conception”. And let’s say that means “life that should be legally and ethically be protected like a human being begins at conception”, because if we don’t add that, it doesn’t actually mean anything.
At conception, we have a single cell, nothing more or less. If we logically extend that, that would mean every single cell is a protected human. If you get your appendix removed, it’s a protected human that was removed and thus killed. If you remove cancer, that’s a protected human.
What about the HeLa cell line? That’s a line of cells derived from the cancer of Henrietta Lacks in the early 50s. These are human cells that have mutated so that they can multiply and live as single-celled organisms. Each of them are protected humans. In fact, there are more HeLa humans (by that definition) than there are actual humans.
So you are talking about potential personhood here or currently active personhood?
I guess it’s more about potential, because otherwise we wouldn’t have the debate.
Sperm and egg cells could develop into a full human. There’s potential personhood here. If you follow that train of thought, it would be a requirement for every woman to get pregnant constantly and every man to never “waste” sperm or something crazy like that. Doesn’t make sense.
Yeah, because the discussion is about legal consequences and ommitting them in favour of some nebuous “when life begins” is just a misdirection, nothing else.
Life begins when the sperm and egg are created. Or actually life begins as the parents, or as their ancestors, millions of generations ago, when they weren’t even multi-cell organisms.
None of that matters at all to the discussion.
The only point relevant to the discussion is “When does this cross from being a ‘thing’ to being a ‘human’ worthy of legal protections?”
Sperm and egg cells don’t have legal protection, they are firmly in the ‘thing’ category. A baby that survived birth is firmly in the ‘human’ category. The question is not “when does life begin”, because that’s an absurd thing to ask.
Ok, let’s take “life begins at conception”. And let’s say that means “life that should be legally and ethically be protected like a human being begins at conception”, because if we don’t add that, it doesn’t actually mean anything.
At conception, we have a single cell, nothing more or less. If we logically extend that, that would mean every single cell is a protected human. If you get your appendix removed, it’s a protected human that was removed and thus killed. If you remove cancer, that’s a protected human.
What about the HeLa cell line? That’s a line of cells derived from the cancer of Henrietta Lacks in the early 50s. These are human cells that have mutated so that they can multiply and live as single-celled organisms. Each of them are protected humans. In fact, there are more HeLa humans (by that definition) than there are actual humans.
So does this definition make any sense?
If my appendix could develop into a full human, I wouldnt get it removed. How many cells we have is irrevelant, personhood matters.
So you are talking about potential personhood here or currently active personhood?
I guess it’s more about potential, because otherwise we wouldn’t have the debate.
Sperm and egg cells could develop into a full human. There’s potential personhood here. If you follow that train of thought, it would be a requirement for every woman to get pregnant constantly and every man to never “waste” sperm or something crazy like that. Doesn’t make sense.
Life begins at conception. Then it’s active personhood
So your definition of “personhood” does not depend on the existence of a person?
What is your definition then? I’m sensing a circular definition incoming.
embryos exist?
when they are conceived and given their rational soul.
In your first paragraph you are directly attaching legal consequences which I explicitly did not propose in my original comment.
Yeah, because the discussion is about legal consequences and ommitting them in favour of some nebuous “when life begins” is just a misdirection, nothing else.
Life begins when the sperm and egg are created. Or actually life begins as the parents, or as their ancestors, millions of generations ago, when they weren’t even multi-cell organisms.
None of that matters at all to the discussion.
The only point relevant to the discussion is “When does this cross from being a ‘thing’ to being a ‘human’ worthy of legal protections?”
Sperm and egg cells don’t have legal protection, they are firmly in the ‘thing’ category. A baby that survived birth is firmly in the ‘human’ category. The question is not “when does life begin”, because that’s an absurd thing to ask.