Determining embryo death means that embryos are alive

cb

The potential/actual distinction is quite old. It is derived from Aristotle's ontology. He thought that male embryos became "human" (in the sense that you're using it) at 40 days post-conception. Females were a little later! In any event, modern embryology has since shown this to be mistaken.

However, you are using the word "human" in a different, non-scientific sense. For you, human means a rights-being entity. For embryologists, human means belonging to the class of entities classified as homo sapiens.

Also, embryologists do not "believe that the embryo is a human being." That the embryo belongs in the category of homo sapiens is logically deduced from a system of classification, and has nothing to do with an individual's beliefs.

tommy

cb

I was actually agreeing with you. If you re-read my post, you'll see: "In any event, modern embryology has since shown this [actual/potential difference] to be mistaken."

So our disagreement has nothing to do with the actual/potential dichotomy. It has to do with your usage of the word "human." You are not using it in a scientific sense. You are using it to designate a political argument. Which is fine, but needs to be recognized as such.

tommy

Sure.

You state: “My claim is that human is human - scientifically, politically, or from any other perspective.” This is sloppy use of language, and does not help us understand what is at stake in debates over human stem cell research, for example. In addition, you are begging the question, “What does ‘human’ mean?” To simply claim that human = human is an empty statement, known as a tautology.

There are several definitions of the word “human.” Like many words, this one is used in both technical and common-sense contexts. Think of it this way; the other day my mechanic said to me that there was a “mountain” of deposits in my oil pan. This build-up is causing problems for my engine. Now, did the mechanic mean that there was “geographic formation, usually of igneous nature, formed through volcanic action” under my hood? No, but he did want to stress that there was a large amount of deposits that will most likely cause further damage if left untreated.

Similar with the word “human.” When bench scientists use the word, it signifies that the entity under examination belongs to the category homo sapiens. When you use the word, you signify an entity that possesses inherent qualities that distinguish it from other entities. These are two very different definitions, with very different consequences.

For a scientist, the statement “human = homo sapiens” is identical to “dog = canis familiaris.” Scientists need to call things by precise names, for a variety of reasons, the least of which is to be able to do science. The important aspect here is that in the scientific definition, nothing is said about the moral status of the entity named “human.” In order to meet your definition of human, there needs to be another concept added, usually called “dignity,” that separates us from the rest of kingdom Animalia.

Thom

cb

So the crux of our disagreement lies in your claim: “If an entity is genetically human, and if it is living, then it has all the intrinsic value as any other living human being.” Essentially (with one modification that I’ll get to in a second) you are saying human = living homo sapiens genetic profile (46 chromosomes). Any entity by virtue of possessing this genetic profile is human. This is an unarguable point because it is a tautology. That is because the predicate (“human”) is already defined by the subject (“living homo sapiens genetic profile”). In other words A = A. I don’t know of a scientist on earth who would disagree with you.

Now, with a sleight of hand, you introduce a new concept: “intrinsic value.” This changes things. You are now saying human = intrinsic value. This is a very different claim that is not tautological, in other words A = B.

However, this is where things get murky. A molecular biologist can show me 46 chromosomes, but she cannot show me intrinsic value. So the next questions are, what is intrinsic value? Where does it come from? Do only humans possess it?

Thom

cb

I am confused about two claims you make:

1. "Everything has intrinsic value (by definition)." I don't know what this means. Please define intrinsic value.

2. "The intrinsic value of two things can be compared by qualitiative or quantitative measurement." So is intrinsic value a relative or absolute quality? How do we measure the intrinsic value of a human?

Thom

cb

I’m not being antagonistic. Of course I know what the words “intrinsic” and “value” mean. I’m making sure I don’t misunderstand you. Often when people use phrases like “intrinsic value” they are referring to a wide variety of things, including, dignity, essence, soul, or spirit. This value usually ends up being some kind of metaphysical stuff.

People often forget that value is an indexical term. That is, things have more or less value in relation to other things. There is no “pure value,” in other words. So my Rolex watch is more valuable than my Seiko watch, but less valuable than my villa in Monte Carlo. However, when concepts like “intrinsic value” get trotted out, the assumption is that the thing which possesses the intrinsic value (“human” in this discussion) is endowed with the value outside of its relations to other things.

So I’m just trying to figure out where you’re coming from.

Thomas

cb

I agree with you. Arguments that attempt to frame the human embryo as somehow not human are a non-starter. We don’t need to keep going over that. However, I’m still not sure what you are trying to say.

You state: “I'm not quantifying or qualifying the nature of the intrinsic value; rather, I'm just defining that it exists.” How can you claim something exists (in this case “intrinsic value”) without explaining what it is? You still have given me no definition of this concept. Besides you don’t define something into existence. You prove empirically or through argumentation that an entity exists, not just saying it exists.

You then state: “Ultimately, I'm trying to center the discussion correctly - not argue my position in that discussion.” Well, that’s an arrogant claim. What is the “correct” discussion then? Please tell me where I’m incorrect. Also, you should be arguing your position in an argument; that is the entire point of an argument! Anything else is disingenuous.

Thomas