Genetic testing
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-11-2013, 06:17 AM
RE: Genetic testing
(16-11-2013 11:28 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(15-11-2013 11:16 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Lacking a nervous system is a temporary state as well.

A person under GA doesn't lack a nervous system, as Cathym already stated it is merely in a state of suspension, its functioning has been modified.

A blastocyst--a clump of blastyocytes--is literally a an aggregation of undifferentiated cells. Yes, if it is allowed to mature it will--all things being equal--develop a nervous system but that is besides the point that it has no nervous system. What it could become is irrelevant.

The logical extension of your argument is that the moral thing to do is extract all of the ova of a woman and try and fertilise each and every one because each ovum has the potential to become a mature foetus. A ovum isn't a "half-person"

Chippy - if we followed tht even further, any murder of a woman should also come with the wrongful deaths of 430 "potential" people.




Quote:Thus it seems that the standard by which you grant moral protection is not past personhood, but future personhood. If I am correct, then shouldn't you also grant moral protection to the blastocyst?

No, moral rights extend to current persons.
[/quote]

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2013, 06:29 AM
RE: Genetic testing
(16-11-2013 11:59 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  Am I the only person who thinks this might be used for nefarious purposes?

Like if you were a presidential candidate and your opponent procured your genetic map, they might try to convince the public you aren't worthy of their vote because you have a predisposition towards <insert any mental illness or disorder here.> Or if you marry someone who is very serious about becoming a parent and you pass something undesirable to the baby, could they divorce & sue you for never getting yourself mapped to check for it? (Yes, I know in the second case, they probably would have made sure you were mapped to begin with. Those were just the first two specific examples that sprang to mind on the spot.)

Maybe even job discrimination or the like could occur. Idk. Am I just being negative here?

There is always the potential for that. the Ethan hawk movie GATACA had this premise.

I regard it in the same way as fossil fuels and forms of obtaining energy. Even solar energy isn't completely clean. CleanER but not clean.

Just because something has cons (as everything does) doesn't mean it should be banned.

Surely you agree that eliminating genetic deformities by not propegating those genes is a good thing. What good can come from Cystic Fib? Except a miserable existence for the afflicted?

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2013, 10:10 AM
RE: Genetic testing
(17-11-2013 06:29 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Just because something has cons (as everything does) doesn't mean it should be banned.

Surely you agree that eliminating genetic deformities by not propegating those genes is a good thing. What good can come from Cystic Fib? Except a miserable existence for the afflicted?

Of course! I don't think it should be banned or discouraged. I just think the early years are going to be a rough transition period while people get used to it.

(By "get used to it," I really mean "rake your political opponent over the coals because you're a dick.")

Things would calm down once enough people have been mapped and all the quirks/kinks are common knowledge. I hope.

THIS USER IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. THANK YOU, AND HAVE A GREAT DAY! http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...a-few-days
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2013, 05:51 PM (This post was last modified: 17-11-2013 06:01 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Genetic testing
(16-11-2013 11:28 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(15-11-2013 11:16 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Lacking a nervous system is a temporary state as well.

A person under GA doesn't lack a nervous system, as Cathym already stated it is merely in a state of suspension, its functioning has been modified.

A blastocyst--a clump of blastyocytes--is literally a an aggregation of undifferentiated cells. Yes, if it is allowed to mature it will--all things being equal--develop a nervous system but that is besides the point that it has no nervous system. What it could become is irrelevant.

The logical extension of your argument is that the moral thing to do is extract all of the ova of a woman and try and fertilise each and every one because each ovum has the potential to become a mature foetus. A ovum isn't a "half-person" and neither is a spermatozoon. A zygote isn't a person and neither is a blastocyst.

Quote:You wouldn't terminate an ethopian because there is a person that if you traveled through time and space you could meet. In a real physical sense, the exact same is true for a blastocyst.

I don't understand the example or the analogy.

Quote:The 40 year old under general anesthesia isn't a person anymore than the blastocyst.

A temporarily non-conscious person with a healthy nervous system is qualitatively different from a clump of blastocytes. I don't know how else to put this fundamental point. Ova are not homunculi, sperm are not homunculi and blastocysts are not homunculi. Referring to these clumps of cells as if they are homunculi, i.e. little people, is a pre-scientific idea.

Quote:You are happy to grant that 40 year old under general anesthesia moral protection because they were a person before and will be a person again.

Yes.

Quote:Presumably you do not grant a corpse moral protection because although they were a person before, they are not a person now and won't be in the future.

Yes.

Quote:Thus it seems that the standard by which you grant moral protection is not past personhood, but future personhood. If I am correct, then shouldn't you also grant moral protection to the blastocyst?

No, moral rights extend to current persons.

I disagree with your claim that a nervous system is what grants a being the moral protection we give persons. Nematodes have functioning nervous systems and they are clearly not persons. Implied in your claim is a caveat that the nervous system functions at a particular level. For this discussion, let us call that particular level...the "personhood level of functioning". It is true a 40 year old under general anesthesia has a nervous system, but it is also true that nervous system isn't functioning at the personhood level. So how can you give that collection of cells the moral protection of personhood?

You still call the 40 year old under general anesthesia a person because their nervous system is only suspended. To suspend is to stop temporarily. If the functioning of nervous system was stopped permanently then could you still call the 40 year old a person? No because they would not have a nervous system which functions at the personhood level.....now or in the future. You only grant personhood to the 40 year old under general anesthesia because once the anesthesia is stopped natural processes will take over and that nervous system will again function at the level of person hood. It is future personhood function which grants moral protection. I don't know how you get away from that. You can call them current persons but that is you just granting them the moral protection of personhood on a label you give them instead of their actual state of being.

A blastocyst is a collection of cells which if natural processes are allowed to continue, will in the future function at the personhood level. It should be granted moral protection because there is a future expectation of personhood.

A sperm or an ovum, by themselves, will never function at the personhood level. They are only potential constituents components, or raw materials of a yet to be created thing which has an expectation of personhood. You do not say some iron ore is an automobile do you? Well you should not say a sperm is a future person. If you are going to do that, you might as well say hydrogen is a future person.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2013, 06:13 PM
RE: Genetic testing
(17-11-2013 05:51 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I disagree with your claim that a nervous system is what grants a being the moral protection we give persons. Nematodes have functioning nervous systems and they are clearly not persons. Implied in your claim is a caveat that the nervous system functions at a particular level. For this discussion, let us call that particular level...the "personhood level of functioning". It is true a 40 year old under general anesthesia has a nervous system, but it is also true that nervous system isn't functioning at the personhood level. So how can you give that collection of cells the moral protection of personhood?

You still call the 40 year old under general anesthesia a person because their nervous system is only suspended. To suspend is to stop temporarily. If the functioning of nervous system was stopped permanently then could you still call the 40 year old a person? No because they would not have a nervous system which functions at the personhood level.....now or in the future. You only grant personhood to the 40 year old under general anesthesia because once the anesthesia is stopped natural processes will take over and that nervous system will again function at the level of person hood. It is future personhood function which grants moral protection. I don't know how you get away from that. You can call them current persons but that is you just granting them the moral protection of personhood on a label you give them instead of their actual state of being.

A blastocyst is a collection of cells which if natural processes are allowed to continue, will in the future function at the personhood level. It should be granted moral protection because there is a future expectation of personhood.

A sperm or an ovum, by themselves, will never function at the personhood level. They are only potential constituents components, or raw materials of a yet to be created thing which has an expectation of personhood. You do not say some iron ore is an automobile do you? Well you should not say a sperm is a future person. If you are going to do that, you might as well say hydrogen is a future person.

By what criteria are people declared clinically dead?

There are several varying definitions in use around the world. Do you agree or disagree with them?

Incidentally, none of them are remotely applicable until well into fetal development.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2013, 01:50 AM
RE: Genetic testing
(17-11-2013 06:13 PM)cjlr Wrote:  By what criteria are people declared clinically dead?

There are several varying definitions in use around the world. Do you agree or disagree with them?

Incidentally, none of them are remotely applicable until well into fetal development.

I imagine that nobody who still has a reasonable future expectation of personhood is declared clinically dead(except in rare cases when the reasonable future expectation is mistakenly estimated at or very near 0 and it turned out it clearly wasn't).

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: