Heart valve grown from stem cells

This should be front page news. A team of scientists has been working for 10 years and has produced a heart valve from stem cells. Heart surgeon Magdi Yacoub, who led the team, said doctors could be using artificially grown heart components in transplants in three years.

The valve was grown from stem cells extracted from bone marrow. Oh wait, you mean they didn't use embryonic stem cells to do this? Nevermind.

Comments

[Cineaste]

Yup, embryonic stem cell lines are effectively banned. So, the great medical progress observed so far had to be done with adult stem cells. What a stupid, self imposed limitation on medicine. We are forced to only imagine what could be had embryonic stem cell lines had been open and financed. Religious right winger's have no respect for people. They respect blastocysts more. The "blastocysts are people too" position is immoral.

[seeker]

The "blastocysts are people too" position is immoral.

I'm willing to support that stand, if you are willing to support that "fetuses greater than 4 weeks old are NOT people" is immoral. Deal?

[Cineaste]

"fetuses greater than 4 weeks old are NOT people"

I'd move that number up to sometime between 20-28 weeks.

Here is my rational Seeker...

For example, for purposes of legal rights, at least in some jurisdictions, a corporation may be treated as a “person” under the law. In the fields of philosophy, theology, and bioethics, the definition of a person may exclude biological human entities (such as human embryos, or deformed human fetuses that lack major portions of the brain, or adult humans lacking higher brain functions).

These alternative definitions of what constitutes a “person” include a wide and varying range of alternative defining characteristics; some of which have evolved historically, and continue to shift with time and social context. Some other characteristics used to define a ‘person’ include personal identity,[2] self-awareness, individuality, and a sense of self that persists through time. Other views centre around the degree to which properties such as agency (both human agency and moral agency) and rights are recognized and acknowledged in society or enforcable by law. The recognition of status as a person is known as personhood.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person

To put it simply, a baby of approximately 7 months HAS the intellectual capacity for a sense of self. A blastocyst does not. This is tangible and substantiative because it’s an empirical fact blastocyts don’t have brains. At 4 weeks of age I still don't think a fetus has developed enough to meet the definition of "personhood."

Of all your opinions Seeker, I respect your stance on this the most. At least on this subject, we can actually have a real debate instead of an argument. At least, thats my hope.

[seeker]

I'll tell you why I don't buy that argument. You could argue something similar for post natal children up until toddlerhood. In fact, psychologists admit that they have no separate sense of self that early, but their concept of themselves as separate doesn't evolve until later.

I've addressed the idea that babies don't have the "higher brain functions" required to comprehend pain until 27 weeks, even though they recoil from it as early as 8 weeks. It's like saying if you are in a coma and I beat you, it's OK cause you didn't feel it.

[Aaron]

Cineaste you do know this happened in England right - where Bush is not president and there is no ban.

BTW, you continue to mislead on the "ban." There is only a ban on federal money being used for anything but the existing lines. There is no ban on research. Private companies can and do research on ESC all the time. If there are cures in ESCR, then private companies are going to put the money into it to get those cures. Unless you have suddenly come over to the dark side and support corporate welfare in this case?

Here is my question: Why not use all available means that don't present ethical quandries before you go into gray areas? Why not exhaust ASCR before we start destroying embryos? While you don't view them as persons, some do. Why take the chance that you are wrong on what you have said is a philosophical question (when does personhood begin?).

[Cineaste]

Aaron embryonic stem cells are even more promising than adult. That's why scientists want to open new lines.

BTW, you continue to mislead on the "ban."

While it's technically true that no law bans embryonic stem-cell research, current administration policies have had much the same effect as a ban. Under an executive order, no federal funding can be used for research on embryonic stem-cell lines that were created after 9 p.m. on Aug. 9, 2001. That has had the practical result of stymieing U.S. embryonic stem-cell research, and is one of the main reasons HR810 was drafted in the first place.

Private companies can and do research on ESC all the time.

"In the United States, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) provides the greatest amount of federal funding to scientists on a competitive basis, and holds a long-term perspective on biomedical research, where profit is irrelevant and the progress of science for the benefit of public health is critical. The limited amount of funding from private sources will be unable to keep pace with the needs of the stem cell research community. Less restricted availability of federal funds for human embryonic stem cell research would certainly accelerate progress in this field, and improve the health of the American people in the long-term."

http://www.isscr.org/science/faq.htm

"The private companies place restrictions on the research by saying that those scientists who use their cells must study certain things with them and have certain objectives, he said. You can't necessarily trust their cells because they have their own interests and they may differentiate them in a way that the researcher does not want before he or she receives them, he added."

Why not use all available means that don't present ethical quandaries before you go into gray areas?

Think of a color gradient. You start out black then it gradually gets lighter. In the middle is the gray area and then at the end it's white. At conception, there is no doubt the unborn is not a person. At 9 month's there is no doubt the unborn is a person. The gray area is in the middle.

1. All people have brains.
2. Blastocyts have no brains.
3. Therefore, blastocysts are not people.

Acorns are acorns. Trees are trees. Acorns are not trees. I'm calling a spade a spade.

While you don't view them as persons, some do.

I view the belief that "personhood starts at conception" as delusional, idiotic, foolish, immoral, dumb... Freaking insane.

Why not just use the 1,000's of embryonic stem cells that are destroyed ANYWAY, every year in IVF clinics, for ESCR?

[seeker]

Why not just use the 1,000's of embryonic stem cells that are destroyed ANYWAY, every year in IVF clinics, for ESCR?

If you would set a limit on how developed these were, I would agree. I still say that beyond 4 weeks of gestation, we are really killing or doing experimentation on human persons. Cognition of pain at 27 weeks is too lenient, and lacks caution and decency (look at pictures of the fetus starting at 8 weeks and you tell me that 27 weeks is ok).

[Cineaste]

If you would set a limit on how developed these were, I would agree.

For ESCR, I Believe scientists only need blastocysts of around 5 days old, so agreed.

[seeker]

Yeah, but do they stay at that level of development?

[Aaron]

So I guess you support corporate welfare now? That's good to know I have won you over to at least one side of being a Republican, even if it is one of my least favorite ones. I guess the big drug and medical companies could use some more money.

Your quotes don't mean much to me when they come from ESCR advocacy groups. They paint the rose-colored pictures like John Edward's comment about Christopher Reeve walking again if the Democrats won the election.

ESCR advocates continue to use that word "promising." Their words ring like a politician "promising" to do all of these things when elected, which is why Edwards' words make it so clear.

At conception, there is no doubt the unborn is not a person.
On numerous occassions, you have made the argument that personhood is a philosophical term not a scientific one. But you want to place scientific certainty on the issue of personhood now because you want to use humans early in the devlopmental process for experimentation for potential cures.

You believe that protecting human life is "delusional, idiotic, foolish, immoral, dumb... Freaking insane." I disagree.

[Cineaste]

You believe that protecting human life is "delusional, idiotic, foolish, immoral, dumb... Freaking insane."

Wow, now THAT is a straw man. Don't put words in mouth, Aaron.

You never responded to my syllogism. I don't think you're able.

1. All people have brains.
2. Blastocyts have no brains.
3. Therefore, blastocysts are not people.

If you disagree with premise one, tell me who the exception is.

Yeah, but do they stay at that level of development?

Yes, they do. They don't develop any further.

[Aaron]

Cineaste what I said was a charged statment but not a strawman. It was an outrageous statement designed to cause you to evaluate your stance. What you call a blastocyst is human life. So, I will respond with my only syllogism.

1. Humans can only create human life.
2. Blastocyts are created by humans.
3. Therefore, blastocyts are human life.

If blastocysts are human life, then your comments about my valuing of them being "delusional, idiotic...." means that you believe protecting human life to be all those things. You choose human lives that you want to protect and others you don't.

[Cineaste]

1. Humans can only create human life.
2. Sperm are created by humans.
3. Therefore, sperm are human life.

"If sperm are human life, then your comments about my valuing of them being "delusional, idiotic...." means that you believe protecting human life to be all those things. You choose human lives that you want to protect and others you don't."

Don't you understand yet Aaron? Do you preserve you're sperm?

You are equivocating between the definition of "Human" and "Person." You put words into my mouth and you have no good response to my syllogism.

[Cineaste]

Ugh! That should be "your" not "you're."

[Cineaste]

Aaron, do you have a response?

1. All people have brains.
2. Blastocyts have no brains.
3. Therefore, blastocysts are not people.

[Aaron]

My answer would be simple:

All humans are people.

It avoids all the arguments, gray areas and debates. If we simply view all human life as worth protecting then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Besides, sprem is not human life. A unborn baby, despite development, is a human.

[seeker]

1. All people have brains.
2. Blastocyts have no brains.
3. Therefore, blastocysts are not people.

The problem with your syllogism is your starting point. You choose a marker of a mature human to define persons. Not only that, you choose a starting point that is not unique to humans. For instance, I could respond:

1. All people have brains
2. Dogs have brains
3. Therefore, dogs are humans

A better starting place would be to use something (a) unique to humans, and (b) does not require maturity.

1. All people have human parents
2. Blastocysts have human parents
3. Therefore, all blastocysts are humans

Of course, there is a problem here, because the argument is circular - it reaches conclusions based on the choice of first premise. So really, your definition of "person" is your first premise.

[seeker]

Of course, if your construct requires a negative second statement, again, you would choose your personhood criteria for point number 1, then choose the pre-human entity you want to exclude for #2.

1. All humans have a complete set of chromosomes and the ability to mature into an adult human
2. Sperm to not have either, neither do eggs, neither do human epithelial cells.
3. Therefore, none of these are human.
4. Blastocysts DO have these characteristics, therefore, they are human.

[Cineaste]

"Of course, there is a problem here, because the argument is circular - it reaches conclusions based on the choice of first premise."

Seeker, Aaron, my argument is sound. If you look up "syllogism" you will find my form of argument is called Camestres and is one of the fifteen forms of valid syllogism. This form is older than Christianity, dating back to the Greeks. An example is (taken from Wiki)...

1. All horses have hooves.
2. No humans have hooves.
3. No humans are horses.

1. All persons have brains.
2. No blastocysts have brains.
3. No blastocysts are persons.

"You choose a marker of a mature human to define persons."

Only mature horses have hooves.

"Not only that, you choose a starting point that is not unique to humans."(other animals have brains)

I don't need to specify goat hooves or pig hooves etc. for the horses. It's implicit.

Aaron, I have to say that Seeker's response has been more thoughtful than yours. You simply say...

"All humans are people."

This is equivocating between the definition of "human" and "person."

Example:

The elements of the moral argument on the status of unborn life…strongly favor the conclusion that this unborn segment of humanity has a right not to be killed, at least. Without laying out all the evidence here, it is fair to conclude from medicine that the humanity of the life growing in a mother's womb is undeniable and, in itself, a powerful reason for treating the unborn with respect.

Source: Helen M. Alvaré, The Abortion Controversy (Greenhaven, 1995), p. 24.

Analysis:

Counter-Example:

The humanity of the patient's appendix is medically undeniable. Therefore, the appendix has a right to life and should not be surgically removed.

Exposition:

Equivocation is the type of ambiguity which occurs when a single word or phrase is ambiguous, and this ambiguity is not grammatical but lexical. So, when a phrase equivocates, it is not due to grammar, but to the phrase as a whole having two distinct meanings.

Aaron, If you can’t refute the logic, it follows that you must grant the conclusion, if you are reasonable.

[Aaron]

Cineaste, if you honestly equate the appendix with your own preborn existence then I am afraid there is not much debate we can have on this issue.

Clearly the appendix is not a human being, but merely a part of one. Using your horse analogy that would be like saying the hoof is a horse. The appendix is not seperate from the human, while the unborn child is seperate (look at the DNA) in every state of development.

You find much more agreement and "logic" with seeker because he agrees with you on this issue more than I. On other issues he is the one not being "reasonable." It seems that our logic and reason are solely dependent on how much we agree with you. Does that not seem a tad arrogant to you?

[Cineaste]

"Clearly the appendix is not a human being, but merely a part of one."

ARGGH! That's exactly correct, Aaron. You have just debunked Helen M. Alvaré's pro-life argument.

"It seems that our logic and reason are solely dependent on how much we agree with you."

Aaron, I am willing to grant you this if you can show me the error in my logic. Unfortunately, you haven't yet. Do you know what equivocate means? That's what you're doing between "human" and "person". I even provided an example of pro-life equivocation. You misunderstood. I'm beginning to think you're simply out of your league.

[Aaron]

I ask Does that not seem a tad arrogant to you? and you follow it up with I'm beginning to think you're simply out of your league. You seem a bit full of yourself lately Cineaste, sorry.

As to my supposed equivocation, I don't think it is very ambiguous or unclear to state that I believe humans to be persons. That seems very clear and in no way trying to give a false impression. It seems pretty obvious. You seem to have understood just fine what I was saying, you just disagreed with it.

I'm sure I do seem out of my league when you take part of my comment and ignore the other. Yes, the appendix is not a human being, but part of one. Yes, the unborn baby is a human being, because it is distinct in every way possible from the mother. The only thing that makes it at all similar to the appendix is location (inside the mother). Are you arguing that humanity or personhood is dependent on location?

[seeker]

We may agree on it a little, but I disagree with the "logic" of his syllogism. I tried to explain why. While his logic from the first point may be valid, his choosing of the first point is the critical piece we disagree on, because he pre-supposing his definition of human in selecting it.

[Cineaste]

I don't think it is very ambiguous or unclear to state that I believe humans to be persons. That seems very clear and in no way trying to give a false impression. It seems pretty obvious.

Fine...

1. All humans have brains.
2. No blastocysts have brains.
3. No blastocysts are humans.

Now do you understand? Blastocyts are human, like an appendix, but appendixes are not humans. Ask yourself this...

Is an acorn the same thing as a tree? No, it's not. An acorn is a seed, with all the DNA, that has the potential to become a tree, but it hasn't developed yet. For the same reason, a blastocyst is not a person. Like the acorn, a blastocyst hasn't developed yet. A blastocyst is a potential person.

If you consider potential people as real people, then it's a crime to you every time you ejaculate because you murder so many potential people that potentially can be used to fertilize female eggs.

It's no wonder that rational people think of the "Personhood begins at conception" stance as delusional, idiotic, foolish, immoral, dumb... Freaking insane.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Seeker, as to your point. If you say that about my argument then you must say the same for this one...

1. All horses have hooves.
2. No humans have hooves.
3. No humans are horses.

and this one...

All terriers are dogs, while no cats are dogs, so no cats are terriers.

My syllogism has the exact same form. "This is another of the fifteen forms of valid syllogism. Camestres: The name given by medieval logicians to any categorical syllogism whose standard form may be designated as AEE-2."

My argument follows this logical form so your arguing with all the logicians of history when you challenge this structure. If you agree with the premises then you must logically accept the conclusion. If you disagree with either of the premises then provide examples to the contrary. Aaron seems stuck on equivocation. You seem stuck on the premises which is the only place any logical objection can be cited. Do all humans have brains or don't they? If not, who are the exceptions?

I've made this post as clear as I can possibly manage.

[seeker]

I have no problem with the structure. I only mention that by changing your first statement, you are predetermining your conclusion, because your first statement is the one that you are choosing to define what is human. Do I need to disprove or prove this idea?

[Cineaste]

"I only mention that by changing your first statement, you are predetermining your conclusion, because your first statement is the one that you are choosing to define what is human."

In the statement "All horses have hooves," I am also choosing to define what is equestrian. That the conclusion follows from this is the intent of the syllogism.

[Stewart]

Cineaste, you're not going to gain any traction here. Consider your syllogism:

1. All humans have brains. 2. No blastocysts have brains. 3. No blastocysts are humans.

Aaron and Seeker do not accept the first premise, because they believe that blastocysts are people. When you ask them to point to an exception, they would naturally point to any blastocyst.

I agree with Seeker when he says, "your definition of 'person' is your first premise." This is surely true. You have a definition of person which does not include creatures without a brain. The definition of person which Aaron and Seeker employ does not include this attribute.

To have a meaningful conversation about this topic, you must only debate using terminology that you are all agreed upon. Since person does not qualify, including it in your argument is only hurting your ability to communicate. If you think that a blastocyst is not worthy of your ethical considerations, simply say so. But if, when giving your reasons why, you say, "Because it isn't a person," you will only be confusing the matter.

[Cineaste]

"Aaron and Seeker do not accept the first premise, because they believe that blastocysts are people."

My understanding is Seeker and Aaron disagree on this issue. Cral.org?

"When you ask them to point to an exception, they would naturally point to any blastocyst."

Well, semantics is very important here. I asked who is an exception. The pronoun "who" refers to, "what person or persons?: Who did it?" Aaron's, inability to identify a person demonstrates his "who" (blastocyst) lacks an identity.

What I was trying to get them to do, by hinting at it, was simply prove the first premise wrong. They could have simply said that if we are able to create an AI or if we ever find intelligent alien life, surely you would consider them as a "person" with rights although neither of these necessarily have "brains" as we think of them.

A better syllogism would be...

1. All persons have A. the sensorial capacity to access an environment (and one's own body) in a way that offers the basic qualitative content for subjective experience and B. The intellectual capacity to conceptually interpret sensorial content as representing some thing to oneself.
2. No blastocysts have A & B.
3. Therefore, no blastocysts are persons.

Now, that is a tight argument :) BTW, A & B are from Immanuel Kant; quite the heavyweight philosopher.

"your definition of 'person' is your first premise." This is surely true."

Yes. It must be so because that is how the syllogism is structured. Does everyone agree with Immanuel Kant? If you don't, please preface your objection with, "I am smarter than Immanuel Kant because..." ROFL :)

[seeker]

Does Kant's definition exclude the comatose or retarded, or babies?

[Cineaste]

"Does Kant's definition exclude the comatose or retarded, or babies?"

No. Though, complete brain death would be excluded. They would still have A. via the physical body but not B. which is what the brain does.

[Stewart]

I am smarter than Immanuel Kant because...

(1) I understand that Kant's categorical imperative is nonsense.
(2) I am not dead.

In all seriousness, I am not smarter than Immanuel Kant was, however his basic ethical philosophy was deeply flawed. And even if it hadn't been, you can't reasonably point to the argument of a smart, dead person, and imply that either we must agree with everything they wrote, or else we are arrogant.

Regardless, the problem with your "tight argument" is that it says absolutely nothing about the world. At its heart, it's merely a definition, not a statement of fact. Kant would say it was analytic, not synthetic. In order for your syllogism (or any syllogism, for that matter) to have any persuasive effect, you must depend on other meanings of the symbols person and blastocyst which are not included in your analysis. More to the point, your syllogism says nothing about whether the entities which you place into those categories are deserving of ethical consideration, and if so, what that consideration would be.

In other words, your syllogism makes no statements about how one should or should not treat an embryo; All you've shown is that there is no overlap between your definitions of person and blastocyst.

[seeker]

Very nice Stewart. I couldn't have said it, since I know little to none about Kant, or philosophy ;)

I know biology, genetics, bible, and developmental psych pretty well, and a bit about other faith systems besides my own. Outside of that, it's google for me ;)

[Cineaste]

"...however his (Kant's) basic ethical philosophy was deeply flawed."

Do you mean pertaining to "personhood" or overall? You have stated in our other conversation that this entire "personhood" debate is basically a waste of time. So by your lights, Kant is wasting time on "personhood" and any philosophy offered on the subject is a waste, from Boethius to Locke to Kant. I disagree Stewart. Bucko was right in that respect.

Regarding the abortion issue, arguing personhood is as arbitrary as when an acorn turns into a tree or when a child turns into and adult. But that does not mean the debate is not worthwhile. My honest answer to you is that I don’t know exactly and I don’t think anyone can know for sure when “personhood” starts. For now, the best we can do is assign an arbitrary age when the unborn attains the rights of a person. 18 is the age where one can sign up and die for their country, the age of consent. 18 is a rather arbitrary age though, don’t you think? In some countries its 16 and in others it’s 21. The age is simply an indicator of adulthood. In reality, adulthood is not a function of age but of emotional maturity… and how in the world can we measure that for each individual? We can’t. But that didn’t stop us from enacting a law that placed the age of consent (adulthood) at exactly 18 years of age and not a day earlier. I believe its a similar situation with “personhood.” This ethic is what the Supreme Court will be arguing about should Roe vs. Wade be reconsidered. (aside from legal precedent)

Looking at that syllogism, I'd say it's pretty darn solid.

"More to the point, your syllogism says nothing about whether the entities which you place into those categories are deserving of ethical consideration, and if so, what that consideration would be."

All entities are deserving of ethical consideration but you said yourself there is a hierarchy. You attach a greater moral significance to a chimp than a mosquito (take suffering out of the equation). Why do you do this? I can tell you why I do, it's because the chimp can live a richer and fuller life than the mosquito. How does it live a richer and fuller life? Through A and B of Kant's requirements of consciousness. The greater the conscience of the entity the greater the moral significance.

"And even if it hadn't been, you can't reasonably point to the argument of a smart, dead person, and imply that either we must agree with everything they wrote, or else we are arrogant."

Oh come on Stewart, didn't the :) and the ROFL (rolling on the floor laughing) tip you off that I was not serious? I disagree with Einstein and his nihilistic determinism. He believed in Spinoza's God. Einstein is smart and dead and I disagree with him and I'm not arrogant for doing so.

"All you've shown is that there is no overlap between your definitions of person and blastocyst."

This has always been my objective in both conversations. I wanted to prove the position that "blastocysts are people too" and that "acorns are trees" as untenable. I've always maintained that nothing ever definitive will ever come from the "when personhood occurs" debate but we can formulate guidelines for what a person is just like we can form guidelines for what the color green is. Though green is difficult to define exactly, you know what I am referring to when I say "green."

[Stewart]

All entities are deserving of ethical consideration but you said yourself there is a hierarchy. You attach a greater moral significance to a chimp than a mosquito (take suffering out of the equation). Why do you do this? I can tell you why I do, it's because the chimp can live a richer and fuller life than the mosquito.

Your response is an implicit acknowlegement that this sort of "moral significance" is entirely subjective. You have given your justification, and it's a fairly reasonable one, but most of the world doesn't share it with you.

The greater the conscience of the entity the greater the moral significance.

In order to make real sense of this sentence, we have to append the phrase "to me". To some people, this addition is obvious and automatic. Others -- and this was Kant's failing, which I alluded to earlier -- believe that there truly is such a thing as objective moral significance.

My points here are (1) to show that all significance is ultimately personal in nature, and (2) that the meaning we attribute to symbols like personhood are equally personal in nature. Do you agree?

[Aaron]

My honest answer to you is that I don’t know exactly and I don’t think anyone can know for sure when “personhood” starts.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm the one being unclear and ambigious, but I clearly state what I believe - all human life is worthy of protection. I place personhood at the scientific moment of conception. I don't waffle or deviate from that stance.

Yet you, who is so logical and reason based, say "the best we can do is assign an arbitrary age." How I am the one who has an "inability to identify a person?"

Maybe your just too smart and nuanced for me to understand.

[Cineaste]

I'm the one being unclear and ambiguous, but I clearly state what I believe - all human life is worthy of protection.

Aaron, an appendix is human life but it's not morally wrong to remove it. You're equivocating again. Stewart, can't an idea be subjective and objective at once? Like I said, when I say "green" you know what I am referring to objectively but if I asked you to pick the exact shade I am thinking of, that's where subjectivity comes into play.

[Cineaste]

Aaron, sorry for the brisk answer. It's just that I don't want to answer this all over again. Here is the conversation Stewart and I are involved in...

http://ourtakes.com/?p=29#comments

It started with that episode of "House" you mentioned and is now 130 comments long. I know it's a big read but I think it covers all the pro-life viewpoints, especially ambiguity.

[Stewart]

Stewart, can't an idea be subjective and objective at once? Like I said, when I say "green" you know what I am referring to objectively but if I asked you to pick the exact shade I am thinking of, that's where subjectivity comes into play.

How can an idea be objective? An idea is the definitive example of 'first-person' ontology. It's always experienced subjectively. I can't even make sense of an objective, 'third-person' idea.

When you say Green, I understand you only by convention. Since I was born, people have constantly referred to a certain range of color wavelengths as green, so I associate that range with the word. But when you use it, I don't objectively know what you're talking about. It's only the overwhelming likelihood that you associate the same range with the same word that allows me to make any sense of your usage. The same is true for every single shared word in our vocabularies.

Maybe that seems like a trivial point to you, but I think it's not. As we see in the example of color, the range that I consider green is almost certainly different than the range that you consider green. There are probably hues near brown that one of us would call green, but the other wouldn't, and it's important to realize that neither of us would be more correct than the other.

So when you give your definition of person, and it doesn't include embryos, that's fine. But then all you are saying is that -- by your definition -- no embryo is a person, and no person is an embryo. In order to draw any ethical conclusions from your original syllogism, you would have to leverage existing ethical connotations that are related to the word person. There are many such connotations, but they are all subjective.

[Aaron]

Will you ever consider the appendix to be a human being or a person no matter how old it is?

If yes, then you have a broader view of personhood than I do ;)

If not, then will you ever consider the blastocyst a human being or person no matter how old it is?

I would think you would have to answer yes because you seemed to indicate that at some stage you grant personhood status to the unborn. Regardless you consider yourself, a former blastocyst, to be a person.

You, a person, were once a blastocyst. You were never an appendix or sperm or anything else that is only part of a human being.

That is the huge difference between the two.

[Cineaste]

Stewart, I started typing out a response saying that you believed as Plato and his cave; in ideal forms which you define as "objective." If you don't, then reality itself is subjective. I am a bit rusty in metaphysics so I dipped into Wiki to study a bit so I can provide a good response to your definition of objectivity. I found this little excerpt and I'll elaborate with my own response later once I brush up. Is this a good synopsis of your point about objectivity and my syllogism? ...

The meaning of the term "objectivity", like the term "subjectivity", is by no means unambiguous, and rather than attempting precision in definition it is more practical to simply illustrate what it involves, and perhaps by elimination, what it is not. The ontological status of a possible objective reality and references towards the objective should not be confused with, or reduced to, the dichotomous relations between object and subject, or subjectivity and objectivity, without considerable qualifications. Essential to this notion is the reconciliation of the objective and references to the objective, where the state of being objective is to correctly represent reality. However, the term "reality" itself can lack clarity and is not without ambiguity. One only needs to consider the relation of an individual subject to the objective world in isolation to see that the relation is constituted by too many unknowns to give any meaning or content to the concept of objectivity, or that the state of being objective has no meaning where in an isolated relationship the subject and object may be indistinguishable except to an external observer. Thus, reconciliation of the objective with references to it involves not simply the object-subject relation, but at least one external observer and the possibility of discourse, even where communication is limited to ostensive definition (pointing).

The concept of objectivity in philosophy does not necessarily entail notions about a neutral point of view, as the term is defined and prescribed, for example, in such disciplines as journalism. A neutral point of view is not to personally take a point of view, that is, it is to represent all sides of the story without personal observation or conjecture. Logically, if represented as "A ∨ ~A" (A or not A), a neutral point of view represents a tautology which some philosophers state has no content, or is meaningless because it provides no new information or knowledge. If represented as "A ∨ B", it may represent alternative positions without regard to the possibility that both alternatives may be true, or false, simultaneously, when the rules of disjunctive syllogisms dictates that one or the other must be true. In philosophy, due to the rule of conditionalization in modern logic, objectivity and the possibility of knowledge always allows for the application of the rule of addition, that is, "(A ∨ B) ∨ C", meaning "(A or B; or C)"[1].

[Cineaste]

If not, then will you ever consider the blastocyst a human being or person no matter how old it is?

This is like asking, "Will you ever consider a toddler an adult now matter how old he is?"

The answer is no, never. If we ever consider a toddler as an adult, then the age of consent (adulthood) goes down to 2 instead of 18. Think about the ramifications!

[Stewart]

The idea of Platonic forms is maybe the least useful thing that Plato offers us. It's pure, metaphysical rubbish. So no, that's not really what I mean when I make a distinction between objective and subjective.

Take two similar questions, of the same form:

(I'll try to answer your question and stay on topic at the same time. Let's see how that works :) )

(1) Is the embryo ten centimeters long?
(2) Is the embryo worthy of our protection?

#1 is objective because, even if it's not actually true, it is verifiable (at least in principle), and it's answer does not depend on our personal feelings. So long as we agree on what a centimeter is, and which direction to measure in, our personal interpretations are not inherently relevant to the result.

#2 is subjective because there is nothing to be verified empirically, and the answer it inherently based on our personal feelings about the subject.

As your quote above suggests, there is some ambiguity here, because any fact is at least partially subjective, due to epistemological uncertainty. But assuming we can trust our senses to provide us at least some degree of valid information about the world around us, we can differentiate between what is fact, and what is interpretation.

And to clarify our earlier discussion about color: If we agree that green is a specific range of wavelengths of light, then the question "Is the grass green?" can be objectively answered (again, at least in principle). But if we have not previously come to agreement about how to identify green, the question is no longer objective. It then depends on our personal interpretation of what the word green means, for which there is no "right" answer. This is what's happening when you and the others discuss who is and is not a "person". You have no previously agreed on what the word means, nor have you agreed on what the application of that label implies about ethical considerations.

[Aaron]

But you consider a toddler a human and a person even though they can't make the same decisions as an adult.

I'm not saying we should let the blastocyst join the army or run for Congress. I saying we should extend protection and rights to them because they are human.

[seeker]

For now, the best we can do is assign an arbitrary age when the unborn attains the rights of a person. 18 is the age where one can sign up and die for their country, the age of consent. 18 is a rather arbitrary age though, don’t you think?

No, 18 is not arbitrary. What we are attemting to do is define the youngest age at which children become mature adults with certain characteristics, such as ability to financially and emotionally support one's self, to participate in public decision making, and the ability to fight for their country.

Due to implementation limits, we choose a specific age, because no one wants to try to measure all of these things. The choice of 18, however, is not arbitrary, since it really appears within a specific range of ages, probably from puberty until one's early 20's.

There are good biological, pschological, and economic reasons why we choose 18. The age is arguable, but not arbitrary.

The same argument applies to the fetus and personhood. We can describe the general characteristics of personhood (the definition), but that will probably only get us a range of dates, with upper, and perhaps lower limits.

Within that range, we should choose a specific date, for legislative purposes, but it wouldn't be an absolute, since, like the age 18 question, it is arguable. HOWEVER, we can use some cautionary princioples, since we know how much is at stake, particularly, balancing the right to life of the fetus with a woman's right to self determination and conscience (which I believe take second place to someon's right to life).

So, for instance, if we use my definitions (c-ral.org), we might get a range from 4 to 12 weeks. I suggest that we choose a number in that range, and towards the shorter end of the range because we are dealing with the potential murder of a person, and caution would cause us to add a buffer in that direction.

Anyway, "arbitrary" is not accurate.