Yes and it begs the question, "is it moral and/or ethical to boycott foreign made products and eliminate the only jobs available to many people in those under developed countries?"
It is the top 5% who are taxed very highly.
Exactly. Which is why it is ridiculous to state that low wage earners are unfairly burdened by taxes. We all are in light of runaway spending but low income workers pay the least as a percentage of income.
You are right that the DNA in the zygote could not belong to any species except Homo sapiens. However, it is still a zygote.
A human zygote, to be more accurate.
I would argue it is not a person. I would argue this because partly I think it matters whether a "person" has a heartbeat, or a brain; its cellular complexity makes a difference.
Genetic complexity doesn't count? Life processes of growth don't count? Is a human with an artificial heart not a person? Is a human whose cognitive brain functions have ceased due to disease or accident no longer a person?
I would also argue this because of the sense of magnitude felt in proportion to its loss: an embryo lost to an an early-term miscarriage (if it is even noticed) is usually not grieved as a person when it dies, and its death is not equivalent in magnitude to the death of a viable fetus or actual infant.
Ah, ignorance is bliss? As long as we remain uninformed of millions of Rwandans being massacred and have formed no emotional attachments to them then they effectively don't exist as 'persons.' Is that it? That's the logic.
Obviously, this is only my opinion. Sorry, in this case, I think that's all any of us have to offer.
True. Do you ever look at your opinions critically and ask yourself if they are formed on the basis of logic or emotion? Consider the last one I addressed ie 'miscarrying with or without knowledge of the pregnancy.' Is it the amount of emotion generated that forms the basis of reality? If someone totals my brand new Hummer II I'll be crazy with the sense of loss. If someone totals my old beater '78 Datsun wagon I won't care. Does that mean that the Datsun wasn't really an automobile? Does logic enter into the actual determination of the truth there?
I have a feeling this debate is taking place in the wrong forum. Maybe the "General Interest" forum?
You're not getting squeamish on me now are you? Now that I've challenged some of your assumptions? ; )
This thread is pretty much dead, I don't think anyone will mind.
If you are just getting tired of me that's fine too. You won't be the first.
I'm not squeamish; most of the time, I relish my assumptions being challenged, and appreciate your doing so. My apologies for not responding earlier; I was at a conference the last couple of days.
Yes and it begs the question, "is it moral and/or ethical to boycott foreign made products and eliminate the only jobs available to many people in those under developed countries?"
I feel this is a disingenuous question. A better question to me is, "Is it moral and/or ethical for companies to take advantage of a lack of labor laws and dollar-a-day salaries in third world countries?" Workers are often intimidated and brutalized in the corporate-sponsored factories in underdeveloped countries, and the corporations are often complicit in the abuse. Is that ethical?
I would argue it is not a person. I would argue this because partly I think it matters whether a "person" has a heartbeat, or a brain; its cellular complexity makes a difference.
Genetic complexity doesn't count? Life processes of growth don't count? Is a human with an artificial heart not a person? Is a human whose cognitive brain functions have ceased due to disease or accident no longer a person?
No, genetic complexity doesn't count, or rather it is not the only thing that counts. A chimpanzee is comparably complex genetically to a human, yet its life is valued less than a human's (justifiably or not, is another topic). Obviously, you can come up with examples where a human's cognitive functions are profoundly impaired or a heart has been replaced with a machine. That artificial heart still beats; those lungs still draw oxygen, a human being with a machine heart is still exponentially more a person than an three-week-old embryo. That heart still beats in the chest of a cellularly and historically complex person. My point remains: a single-celled organism with the potential to become a human being is not yet a human being.
I would also argue this because of the sense of magnitude felt in proportion to its loss: an embryo lost to an an early-term miscarriage (if it is even noticed) is usually not grieved as a person when it dies, and its death is not equivalent in magnitude to the death of a viable fetus or actual infant.
Ah, ignorance is bliss? As long as we remain uninformed of millions of Rwandans being massacred and have formed no emotional attachments to them then they effectively don't exist as 'persons.' Is that it? That's the logic.
I feel this sidesteps the point. The emotional impact of an embryo's vs. a fetus' death is highly relevant, and the 'if a tree falls in the forest, does anybody care' argument doesn't address the essential thrust. If a) a zygote dies, and the mother was aware of this, or b) she births a stillborn baby who died at eight months, a child with fingers and eyes and a brain (and yes, a fingerless, eyeless person is still human), and she is aware of this, which loss is felt more keenly? For most people, the grief would be qualitatively (and no doubt quantitatively) different. This is not an argument based on emotional reasoning, in the sense that I am allowing my own emotion to override logic. It is an argument based on observation of emotion. I am arguing that we grieve when persons die; most of us do not grieve when pre- or potential persons die.
No, I'm not getting tired of you. Though no doubt some are tiring of me! Most of the time when people make the arguments you're making to me, they do it by literally or figuratively jabbing their fingers in my chest. So I appreciate the intelligence of your writing and thought.