> Some bioethics experts are concerned

I do have to wonder what goes on in the minds of these people. My sister-in-law has a child with Down's syndrome and the situation basically ruined her life. She can no longer work, so they now struggle on a single income, if her husband were to leave her she would be completely screwed. To what end is that in the continuance of ethics?

I understand where they're coming from, but I believe it comes from a place of local and specific concern (the child with Down's syndrome) and not the wider impact.

The way I think about it; 10-20% of known pregnancies (and a larger number of all pregnancies) end in miscarriage, the majority of which are due to genetic errors and chromosomal abnormalities that, unfortunately, mean the fetus wasn't viable to begin with.

While some genetic defects don't kill the baby in the womb, the resulting baby is not healthy and will never be self-sufficient. Terminating these pregnancies lets the couple try again and gives the chance for another, healthy baby to come into the world, and possibly more because they won't have the burden of a many-orders-of-magnitude more difficult and perpetually child to raise.

It is a sound pragmatic logic (ignoring few corner cases), but people deciding things in such hard situation often don't decide purely on logic, if at all.

Many ethicists value the continuation of someone's--anyone's--(literal) life over the continuation of anyone else's lifestyle.

I'm not arguing whether you should or shouldn't agree with them, nor saying anything about in which cases. It's just one of the primary things going on in the minds of those people, and you said you wondered.

Down screening is done at like 16 weeks. At 16 weeks that's hardly a life.

Also you are being very dismissive by hand-waving away lifestyle. Quality of life is a significant factor in medical decisions. Many people choose short high-qol lives over longer low-qol lives.

That’s a different argument though, because this scenario is specifically about weighing one’s life versus a different person’s lifestyle.

>Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/

It’s alive as a zygote, so without even looking at the paper I don’t disagree. The person you responded to said “hardly a life” though, so I don’t think they literally mean is it a cell that’s alive.

It's a unique living organism. A life. Different from a skin cell which isn't a unique organism.

Would you consider a chimera resulting from the fusion of two embryos as two people?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)

I would say it's similar to one person dying and another person getting a ton of transplants from that person.

That does not resolve your problem, it only shuffles it around.

You are defending the case that personhood begins at conception, and your argument supporting this case is "It's a unique living organism. A life. Different from a skin cell which isn't a unique organism."

If I get a kidney from someone else, and that person dies, according to your own argument, that kidney is a person. These cells are metabolizing and dividing, therefore alive, and they are unique with respect to the rest of my body.

Perhaps you'll argue that the kidney isn't an organism because it has no means of reproducing itself. To that I have two counterarguments:

- The argument implies that infertile humans are not persons.

- Nature contains every horror imaginable, including clonally transmissible cancers [0]. If my body develops such a cancer and it jumps to someone else, then I die, according to your definition my cancer that's colonizing someone else's body is a person.

I won't claim to know what defines personhood, but an obvious prerequisite (in the context of human life) is the existence of a centralized nervous system. If I am beheaded, and my headless body is placed on life support while my brain is destroyed, I, as a person, am dead, even if my body is alive. If my brain is surgically removed and placed on life support in a vat, and allowed to interface with the world somehow, then I, as a person, am still alive (whether such a life is worth living is a different question).

Accepting this prerequisite resolves the chimera problem, the kidney problem, the infertility problem and the transmissible cancer, and it results in the conclusion that a zygote is not yet a person, as it does not have a nervous system.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_facial_tumour_disease

Does the kidney meet the scientific definition of an organism?

If we were to survey those biologists, what would they say? Same regarding an infertile person, and cancer. I think scientists have already resolved the questions you're posing.

BTW, I don't think the nervous system argument is very common. Pro life people won't use it, because it means early abortions would be ok. Most pro choice people won't use it, because it means abortions would have to be very restricted. The nervous system starts to form at 3 weeks of fetal age (5 weeks gestational age). Most people are in a tail-wagging-the-dog situation where their beliefs about personhood are derived from their belief about whether abortion should be legal or not, instead of the other way around. I see you haven't fallen into that trap. It does seem possible I have fallen into the trap. However, I do think science is on my side.

> If we were to survey those biologists, what would they say? Same regarding an infertile person, and cancer. I think scientists have already resolved the questions you're posing.

If a definition exists that avoids all these edge cases, please provide it. I am not aware of a definition of "organism" that would resolve all the problems in your stance.

> Most pro choice people won't use it, because it means abortions would have to be very restricted.

The most common pro-choice argument is based on bodily autonomy, for which the personhood of the fetus is irrelevant. It suffices to observe that there is no other situation where the law prioritizes one's duty to care for another over one's bodily autonomy, so even if the fetus is a person, the state cannot force you to carry them to term.

So you are technically correct in stating that it is rarely used as a defense for the pro-choice position, but not "because it means abortions would have to be very restricted". In the bodily autonomy argument, the personhood of the fetus is irrelevant.

I agree with the bodily autonomy argument and the broader pro-choice position, but in this case I'm not really making a political argument, but a philosophical one, which is: it's a mistake to strongly identify personhood with the property of "being an organism" / "being alive".

>If a definition exists that avoids all these edge cases, please provide it. I am not aware of a definition of "organism" that would resolve all the problems in your stance.

One way to define a human is any living entity that is either an adult human, or will/would grow into an adult human as long as no problem has happened or will happen to the entity.

> It suffices to observe that there is no other situation where the law prioritizes one's duty to care for another over one's bodily autonomy

The draft. And a lot of other military rules.

Another example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_captain_goes_down_with_the... . The captain has a duty to save passengers first before saving self.

>In the bodily autonomy argument, the personhood of the fetus is irrelevant.

I don't think that's right. Let's say there are 2 people: A and B. Both are innocent. Person A has some bodily suffering. The only way to solve it is to kill person B. So the options are to restore person A to full bodily health and completely destroy person B's bodily health (violating person B's bodily autonomy completely) or to leave the situation as-is, where person A has has only partial bodily health but person B has full bodily health (violating person A's bodily autonomy partially). I think the correct option is to leave the situation as-is, because that violates bodily autonomy the least.

Of course even better is for other people to give aid to person A to reduce the suffering as much as possible without hurting person B.

> One way to define a human is any living entity that is either an adult human, or will/would grow into an adult human as long as no problem has happened or will happen to the entity.

A few posts back you complained about "tail-wagging-the-dog" thinking, where one reasons backwards from the conclusions one wishes to reach. Your definition is obviously a product of that style of thinking: instead of clarifying what is or isn't a human, you will use the natural elasticity of terms like "problem" and "entity" to draw your boundary however you wish, based on pre-existing notions, when confronted with a challenge.

For example, if a child dies from starvation, therefore not growing into adulthood, you will of course say that the lack of nutrients is a problem that prevented this child from reaching adulthood, so it's still a human.

But if an unfertilized egg dies due to not being fertilized, I'm sure you would argue that "not being fertilized" doesn't count as a problem; or alternatively, that the fertilized egg is a different entity from the unfertilized egg. But none of this follows naturally from the definition, it requires our notions of "problem" and "entity" to be perfectly aligned to begin with. And you will pick your understanding of "problem" and "entity" based on wanting to prove that the unfertilized egg isn't a human but the starving child is.

Or imagine a child that is born with a mutation that prevents it from reaching adulthood. Clearly we both want to consider this child human. But I would argue that no problem ever "happened" to this entity: the mutation is part of what defines the entity, there is no alternative hypothetical future where it could reach adulthood. According to your definition I could not call this child a human.

> The draft. And a lot of other military rules.

The draft is an example of the state overruling an individual's bodily autonomy, but I specifically said "[...] where the law prioritizes one's duty to care for another over one's bodily autonomy". The draft is not an example of that: it is a case where the law prioritizes protecting the interests/preservation of the state over another's bodily autonomy, which might in some cases coincide with caring for others, but it clearly doesn't have to.

> The captain has a duty to save passengers first before saving self.

Yes, you can enter an agreement with another party where you make a legally binding promise to perform some duty that overrides your bodily autonomy. This is not an example of the law overriding your bodily autonomy, it's an example of how you can use the law to relinquish your own right to bodily autonomy. Getting pregnant does not require such a legally binding promise.

> I don't think that's right [...]

I'm irrefutably correct that the bodily autonomy argument does not depend on the fetus being a person or not. It's a sufficiently prominent argument that it has a section on the "abortion debate" page on wikipedia [0]. Perhaps the argument does not convince you, but that was not my point. I only wished to show that you are mistaken about the pro-choice position being dependent on the non-personhood of the fetus.

At present I'm not interested in starting a parallel discussion about the validity of the bodily autonomy argument. I can leave a video link [1] if you're interested in how it responds to the most obvious challenges, but I will not return to it unless, maybe, the personhood thread is resolved (to avoid a branching tree discussion).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_debate#Bodily_rights

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2PAajlHbnU

>But if an unfertilized egg dies due to not being fertilized, I'm sure you would argue that "not being fertilized" doesn't count as a problem; or alternatively, that the fertilized egg is a different entity from the unfertilized egg. But none of this follows naturally from the definition, it requires our notions of "problem" and "entity" to be perfectly aligned to begin with. And you will pick your understanding of "problem" and "entity" based on wanting to prove that the unfertilized egg isn't a human but the starving child is.

I think there's a clear biological difference between an entity receiving nutrition, and 2 entities, each with half of a set of DNA, coming together to make a single entity with a full set of DNA.

>it is a case where the law prioritizes protecting the interests/preservation of the state over another's bodily autonomy, which might in some cases coincide with caring for others, but it clearly doesn't have to.

What you're saying seems to be that it's ok for the state to mandate citizens protect the state, but not ok for the state to mandate citizens protect the people in the state. My response is (1) mandating citizens protect the state is protecting the people in the state, and (2) if there was some hypothetical case where citizens protecting the state didn't protect the people in the state, I don't see how it would be morally ok for the state to mandate citizens protect the state, but not ok for the state to mandate citizens protect the people in the state.

> I think there's a clear biological difference between an entity receiving nutrition, and 2 entities, each with half of a set of DNA, coming together to make a single entity with a full set of DNA.

The difference is "clear" to you because you are reasoning backwards from a desired conclusion. You want to claim that the zygote is a person and the unfertilized egg is not, so of course the merger of DNA is the "clear" boundary between entities to you.

But this boundary just doesn't work very well. To begin with you ignored the "child with deadly mutation" challenge I presented: the only way the child reaches adulthood is if we modify its genes, which you seem to imply makes it a different entity.

And if we dig a bit deeper, the criterion by which you disqualify the unfertilized egg from being considered human also disqualifies the fertilized egg. It too is an entity which can meld with other entities to form a single entity (chimerism, as we discussed), and it can even do the opposite: identical twins start as one zygote that splits at a later point in its development.

I'm not sure even adult humans would qualify for being human in your worldview, come to think of it. Some people have had their brain halves separated during their lifetime, and this seems to lead to two separate persons locked in one body, at least in some cases (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain).

At this point, you can start overfitting your definition to draw an absurdly jagged boundary exactly around these counterexamples, but at that point I'd appreciate if you just admit that personhood starting at fertilization is just an axiom for you and everything else follows from it.

> What you're saying seems to be that it's ok for the state to mandate citizens protect the state, but not ok for the state to mandate citizens protect the people in the state.

That is very much not what I am saying, but I wasn't very explicit about the point I was making, so I shall clarify.

Two people can disagree about what they think the law should say, but one thing that all decent people would agree on, is that the law should be consistent. We want it to apply evenly to all, without strange exceptions. We don't want any laws that say "everyone is free, except people born in May, they have to do slave labor in the mines."

I was not making an argument about what the law should be, I was arguing that abortion laws make the law inconsistent, as there is no other case where the state violates the bodily autonomy of one person to force them to care for another. For example, if we are in a remote area and I get badly injured, and you are the only person with a compatible blood type nearby, the state can't force you to donate your blood to me.

My point was that it's inconsistent to say that the state can violate one person's bodily autonomy to keep another alive specifically in the case of pregnancy. If you want to make this consistent, you need to allow the state to do this in all cases, implying among other things forced blood transfusions and forced kidney donations. Perhaps you agree that the state should be able to force people to donate blood or a kidney, and in that case your opinion is consistent.

I wasn't expressing agreement or disagreement with the draft. I was stating that it is irrelevant as a counterexample. That's because the justification for the draft rests on a moral principle that's distinct from the one that justifies abortion laws (ie "citizens' bodily autonomy can be violated to defend the state" vs "citizens' bodily autonomy can be violated to save any individual's life"). Again, I deliberately offer no opinion on whether the draft is justified; for my purposes it's enough to show that it is not relevant as a counterexample.

>The difference is "clear" to you because you are reasoning backwards from a desired conclusion. You want to claim that the zygote is a person and the unfertilized egg is not, so of course the merger of DNA is the "clear" boundary between entities to you.

I'm not making up this boundary. This is the scientific definition of an organism.

>To begin with you ignored the "child with deadly mutation" challenge I presented:

The deadly mutation would be the "problem [that] has happened or will happen to the entity." So it doesn't contradict my previous definition. Regardless of whether the deadly mutation could be fixed by gene modification or not, the child is still a person.

>if we modify its genes, which you seem to imply makes it a different entity.

I don't think I said that.

>And if we dig a bit deeper, the criterion by which you disqualify the unfertilized egg from being considered human also disqualifies the fertilized egg. It too is an entity which can meld with other entities to form a single entity (chimerism, as we discussed), and it can even do the opposite: identical twins start as one zygote that splits at a later point in its development.

I'm not sure either of those contradict my previous definition. The chimerism can be considered a problem that will happen. Regarding identical twins, we could argue whether "grow into an adult human" covers "grow into 2 adult humans" or not.

We can modify the definition slightly to avoid these ambiguities: "Any living entity that is either an adult human, or will/would grow into an adult human as long as no problem has happened or will happen to the entity and the typical development process proceeds."

>I'm not sure even adult humans would qualify for being human in your worldview, come to think of it. Some people have had their brain halves separated during their lifetime, and this seems to lead to two separate persons locked in one body, at least in some cases (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain).

I'm not sure how that situation in any way would lead to a strange interaction with my definition (old or new definitions). My definition would classify that person as a person.

>but at that point I'd appreciate if you just admit that personhood starting at fertilization is just an axiom for you and everything else follows from it.

The axiom for me is that there's no such thing as a partial person. From that axiom, the only logical conclusion I can see is that personhood begins at fertilization.

>as there is no other case where the state violates the bodily autonomy of one person to force them to care for another.

What about child neglect laws? Those restrict the parents' autonomy.

>For example, if we are in a remote area and I get badly injured, and you are the only person with a compatible blood type nearby, the state can't force you to donate your blood to me.

Generally the state's laws forbid one person from taking actions that would violate the rights of another person. For example, if I'm dying and need a kidney, it's not legal for me to forcefully take a kidney from someone else, even if that's the only way to preserve my bodily rights (avoiding death).

I think that is consistent to the state making it not legal for a mother to kill a fetus (assuming the state views the fetus as a person), even if that's the only way for the mother to preserve her bodily rights.

> I'm not making up this boundary. This is the scientific definition of an organism.

To begin with, you did not volunteer a definition for the term "organism"; you limited yourself to attempting defining "human". This was rhetorically a good move, because defining the term "organism" is significantly harder.

You keep repeating that your definition is scientific, but offer no evidence of this. I argue that no such definition exists. The wikipedia page for the term "organism" starts as follows:

> An organism is any living thing that functions as an individual. Such a definition raises more problems than it solves, not least because the concept of an individual is also difficult. Several criteria, few of which are widely accepted, have been proposed to define what constitutes an organism.

> > if we modify its genes, which you seem to imply makes it a different entity.

> I don't think I said that.

> >And if we dig a bit deeper, the criterion by which you disqualify the unfertilized egg from being considered human also disqualifies the fertilized egg. It too is an entity which can meld with other entities to form a single entity (chimerism, as we discussed), and it can even do the opposite: identical twins start as one zygote that splits at a later point in its development.

> I'm not sure either of those contradict my previous definition. The chimerism can be considered a problem that will happen. Regarding identical twins, we could argue whether "grow into an adult human" covers "grow into 2 adult humans" or not.

You forget that my statement was a reply to something you said after you stated your definition. You argued that an unfertilized egg cannot be considered a person because it is "clearly" a different entity from the fertilized egg. That does not follow from your definition, because you don't define the term "entity" anywhere.

All my counterexamples were further attempts to divine what you mean by "entity" (which is an absolutely load-bearing concept in your definition which, again, you leave undefined). If you object to the unfertilized egg being the same entity as the fertilized egg, my hypotheses about your understanding of "entity" are that either changing the genome means that it becomes a different entity (generating the deadly mutation challenge), or merging two entities makes them a distinct entity from either original (generating the chimerism example).

My reasoning was a bit loose regarding the identical twins and split-brain examples: I implicitly generalized your potential objection to mergers to an objection to changes in cardinality. I personally don't see why one would reject mergers but accept splits, but that's not an inconsistent position.

At the moment I still don't know why you believe the unfertilized egg is necessarily a different entity from the zygote. Your response to the chimerism example provides no clarification on this: I was clearly challenging your notion of entity, but you responded only with that it "can be considered a problem that can happen".

> The axiom for me is that there's no such thing as a partial person. From that axiom, the only logical conclusion I can see is that personhood begins at fertilization.

I strongly disagree with this axiom. At some point in the distant past, our ancestors were non-human (and, possibly but not necessarily at the same time, not persons). The logical conclusion from your axiom is that there was, at some point, a hard boundary where an entirely nonperson animal gave birth to a "full person" human (and that first human then presumably had to reproduce through bestiality, unless through some amazing fortune another full 100% human being was born and fertile during their fertile years).

This seems to me a significantly less reasonable reading of reality than describing this as a gradual process towards personhood/humanity, where each successive generation is "more personlike". I find this also a more moral reading of reality: to me clearly an ape or an octopus is more personlike than a cockroach, which is in turn a bit more personlike than a jellyfish, which is a tiny tiny bit more personlike than a sea sponge.

> What about child neglect laws? Those restrict the parents' autonomy.

Correct. But it does not restrict their bodily autonomy. I don't think parents can be forced to donate blood or organs to their offspring. Of course most would without a second thought, but not because it is obligated by law.

> Generally the state's laws forbid one person from taking actions that would violate the rights of another person [...] I think that is consistent to the state making it not legal for a mother to kill a fetus [...]

There's a contrived "standard thought experiment" that responds to this: suppose A kidnaps B, ties them down, and connects B's bloodstream to an entirely innocent C with kidney failure, so that B's kidneys process C's blood. Disconnecting B from C will result in the death of C (assume there is no way around this). In this case the status quo is that B is keeping C alive, and it requires active intervention to change this situation. Does B now have a moral duty to remain physically connected to C at all times? Does B "kill" C if they disconnect the bloodstreams?

If you believe that it is, your opinion is consistent. If it's not, then you must at least permit abortion in the case of rape, even if the fetus is a person.

> Such a definition raises more problems than it solves,

That's a good point. However, none of the examples of situations where the definition is debatable apply to humans. The page lists viruses, colonial organisms, zooids, and collaboration organisms. I think for humans (which I think is the most widely studied organism), scientists can clearly define what is an organism and what isn't.

I think if you were to survey biologists, the vast majority (95%+) would agree with me on all the cases ("is this specific thing a human organism") you listed.

>"entity" (which is an absolutely load-bearing concept in your definition which, again, you leave undefined)

Ok. Let's define it as "a cell or group of cells that are joined together and acting together".

>You argued that an unfertilized egg cannot be considered a person because it is "clearly" a different entity from the fertilized egg.

I said "I think there's a clear biological difference between an entity receiving nutrition, and 2 entities, each with half of a set of DNA, coming together to make a single entity with a full set of DNA."

My point was that there's a clear difference between receiving nutrition and 2 entities with half a set of DNA coming together. My point wasn't that the unfertilized egg and fertilized egg are clearly different entities (as you've pointed out, that's not exactly clear, and depends on the definition entity).

My definition doesn't hinge on the unfertilized egg and fertilized egg being different entities. An unfertilized egg won't typically grow into an adult human. A fertilized egg will typically grow into an adult human.

>At some point in the distant past, our ancestors were non-human (and, possibly but not necessarily at the same time, not persons). The logical conclusion from your axiom is that there was, at some point, a hard boundary where an entirely nonperson animal gave birth to a "full person" human (and that first human then presumably had to reproduce through bestiality, unless through some amazing fortune another full 100% human being was born and fertile during their fertile years).

That's a good point. One thing though is that our actions today can't impact people in the past. So from an ethics point of view, we don't need to worry about the past, only the present and future. And as you say, we don't 100% know what happened in the past.

With the partial people view, someone might conclude today a person with a certain genetic disorder is similar to an ape, and thus a partial person, and thus doesn't need rights. By saying "no partial people today", we avoid that problem.

>If you believe that it is, your opinion is consistent. If it's not, then you must at least permit abortion in the case of rape, even if the fetus is a person.

I would say the way to resolve this is by defining what is the standard care that each person deserves.

If someone needs an exotic treatment that costs $1B/day to survive each day, and a hospital has the treatment in stock, is the hospital obligated to provide it to someone who can't pay? I would say no. It's within the hospital's rights to not give the person the treatment, or cease treatment if already provided in previous days.

However, is it within the hospital's rights to cease providing the person food and water against the person's will? (Let's avoid the euthanasia discussion and say the person is fully responsive but is quadriplegic.) I would say no. Food and water are standard care, and cannot be denied.

Food and water are standard care. The $1B treatment isn't.

2 people being attached permanently for the purpose of blood processing of a failed kidney isn't standard care.

A mother's womb is standard care for a fetus.

(Another thing to consider is what direct action is taken. In a D&E abortion, the fetus is cut into pieces with a scissors, which is the cause of death. So in the specific case of a D&E abortion, there's a second clear difference from the blood treatment case, in that it's a direct physical attack on the fetus that kills the fetus. E.g. in the kidney failure case, would it be ok to cut the person into pieces with a chainsaw? No, even if the person already is going to die of kidney failure. Other types of abortion are not as direct though, so this argument can't be as clearly used to condemn all types of abortion.)

I'll re-order a bit based on perceived importance.

> That's a good point. One thing though is that our actions today can't impact people in the past. So from an ethics point of view, we don't need to worry about the past, only the present and future. And as you say, we don't 100% know what happened in the past.

> With the partial people view, someone might conclude today a person with a certain genetic disorder is similar to an ape, and thus a partial person, and thus doesn't need rights. By saying "no partial people today", we avoid that problem.

Here it's important to remember exactly what positions we are defending. The viewpoint you have been defending is not merely that we should, for ethical reasons, consider the zygote to be a person. You are defending a much stronger claim, which is that denying that the zygote is a person goes against our current scientific understanding.

To be absolutely clear: I don't think that your belief that the zygote is a person is unscientific or demonstrably wrong (although I believe there are more sensible candidates for boundaries). What's more is that I understand the need for a "legal fiction" around personhood: a legal definition that is deliberately too broad, stemming from a hopefully broadly shared sense that we should try very hard to avoid false negatives.

However, I am very certain that this conviction is not a scientific necessity. It's specifically this part of your claim I am addressing with the "nonhuman ancestors" example. My claim is that science simply does not provide us with a clean boundary between persons and non-persons. Whatever boundary we are going to come up with for legal and moral reasons is going to be somewhat arbitrary, probably based on drawing the boundary a bit too broad.

You claim that your belief that the zygote is a person follows logically from the axiom that personhood is always non-partial. I agree with this as a legal fiction. But from a philosophical or scientific point of view, this is simply disprovable. If you accept that my nonhuman ancestors example disproves your axiom of non-partiality of personhood in the domain of philosphy/science (not in the domain of law), then:

- you can continue to believe that we should consider the zygote as a full person

- but, your argument that it is logically or scientifically necessary to consider the zygote as a person collapses.

> 2 people being attached permanently for the purpose of blood processing of a failed kidney isn't standard care.

I feel like your entire argument here rests on the idea that the attachment is permanent, making your sacrifice much greater than that of a pregnant woman. If we contrive a reason why, for example, you would only need to be attached for a month or week or so, this argument evaporates. If you need to provide your kidneys for the duration of one week, then your sacrifice is clearly much less than that of a pregnant woman. On what basis can the state then force a pregnant woman to stay pregnant for nine months, but not force you to remain a living dialysis machine for a week?

> My definition doesn't hinge on the unfertilized egg and fertilized egg being different entities. An unfertilized egg won't typically grow into an adult human. A fertilized egg will typically grow into an adult human.

Retracing this thread in the conversation, I'm getting confused about what your exact position here is. This is what I said earlier:

> Me: But if an unfertilized egg dies due to not being fertilized, I'm sure you would argue that "not being fertilized" doesn't count as a problem; or alternatively, that the fertilized egg is a different entity from the unfertilized egg. But none of this follows naturally from the definition, it requires our notions of "problem" and "entity" to be perfectly aligned to begin with. And you will pick your understanding of "problem" and "entity" based on wanting to prove that the unfertilized egg isn't a human but the starving child is.

So you must either claim that it's a different entity, or that not being fertilized doesn't count as a "problem". The thread continues:

> You: I think there's a clear biological difference between an entity receiving nutrition, and 2 entities, each with half of a set of DNA, coming together to make a single entity with a full set of DNA.

> Me: The difference is "clear" to you because you are reasoning backwards from a desired conclusion. You want to claim that the zygote is a person and the unfertilized egg is not, so of course the merger of DNA is the "clear" boundary between entities to you.

> You: I'm not making up this boundary. This is the scientific definition of an organism.

Because of this quote, I was convinced that out of the "problem" and "entity" objections, you picked the "entity" one; that is, you respond to my challenge that the unfertilized egg can be considered a human being in your definition by stating that it is a different entity from the unfertilized egg, not that "not being fertilized" doesn't count as a problem.

But then in your most recent post you state "My point wasn't that the unfertilized egg and fertilized egg are clearly different entities". Then what was the point you were making by bringing up the definition of an organism?

I think I agree with most of your first section. A couple points though:

>However, I am very certain that this conviction is not a scientific necessity.

Well personhood isn't a scientific concept. So science can't prove when personhood begins. It can only provide evidence about development that we can use to try to determine when personhood begins.

>If you accept that my nonhuman ancestors example disproves your axiom of non-partiality of personhood in the domain of philosphy/science

It doesn't 100% disprove it, because we don't 100% know what happened in the past.

>If you need to provide your kidneys for the duration of one week, then your sacrifice is clearly much less than that of a pregnant woman.

Well if I'm tied down by a tube, would I be able to walk around, drive a car, sleep, use the restroom, have a private conversation? A pregnant woman can do all those things. Yes, while in labor her activities are more restricted, but that doesn't last a week.

If the level of inconvenience of the tube was similar to the level of inconvenience of pregnancy, I would be in favor of the state making it illegal to disconnect the tube IF it's the only way to prevent an innocent person from dying. The state should however compensate the healthy person. I'm also in favor of the state providing compensation for pregnant women.

>So you must either claim that it's a different entity, or that not being fertilized doesn't count as a "problem".

The "or" in that sentence is inclusive or, right, not exclusive or? So it's ok for me to claim both, or just 1?

I claim that not being fertilized doesn't count as a problem. Most eggs don't get fertilized. The standard course of events for an egg is no fertilization.

I also think the unfertilized egg and fertilized egg are different entities. But due to the "or", I don't need to argue this point. For the sake of an argument we could say they're the same entity, and my overall point would still stand.

>Then what was the point you were making by bringing up the definition of an organism?

You said "You want to claim that the zygote is a person and the unfertilized egg is not, so of course the merger of DNA is the "clear" boundary between entities to you." I do think that's the clear boundary between entities, and I replied why. However, my overall definition is valid regardless of whether they're the same entity or different entities.

I have a different opinion than yours. So what if that's some, very narrow definition of life? If I develop a tumor is it also a life? It certainly behaves so.

World is full of human life. West (and not only) manufactures failed wars that killed millions of civilians without a blink of an eye (Vietnam, Iraqs, Afghanistan just to name a few) and sends its own people to death. Where are those life-at-all-costs defenders?

Such people are the last to force their own viewpoints on protecting life unto literally everybody else. Yet they feel the most righteous due to whatever fucked up morals they have to spread them and attack everybody who dares to think differently.

Another story - very similar people (to the point of calling them often the same) have huge mental barriers unplugging their relatives from life support, in situations when there is 0 chance for any sort of recovery and brain is heavily damaged. Wife is a doctor and most of them are religious freaks, ie italian where we live (nothing against you guys, apart from this). They let their closest people suffer horribly (within the limits of their state) for months or even years, put a massive financial burden on whole society just because they don't feel like signing papers for unplugging already dead person, its just some parts of their body is sort of kept alive. Absolutely deplorable weak 'humans', I have no nice word for those. Suffice to say wife saw her share of such folks during her years in hospitals and it was one of the reasons she moved to private sphere.

>So what if that's some, very narrow definition of life?

It's not just some definition. It's the scientific definition. Lots of people have the motto "I believe in science" but then reject the scientific definition of life when it comes to humans.

>If I develop a tumor is it also a life? It certainly behaves so.

Well, we could survey those same biologists. I think they would say no. Does it have DNA of a unique person different from the person it's in? I'm not a biologist, but I think no.

>World is full of human life. West (and not only) manufactures failed wars that killed millions of civilians without a blink of an eye (Vietnam, Iraqs, Afghanistan just to name a few) and sends its own people to death. Where are those life-at-all-costs defenders?

https://www.solidarity-party.org/

Their 2020 presidential candidate is so life-at-all-costs that his website TLD is life: https://briancarroll.life .

>Such people are the last to force their own viewpoints on protecting life unto literally everybody else. Yet they feel the most righteous due to whatever fucked up morals they have to spread them and attack everybody who dares to think differently.

I'm not really sure what you're saying here. You say these people are the last to force their viewpoints on protecting life onto other people, but also they aggressively force their viewpoint on protecting life onto other people? That seems like a contradiction to me.

Yes, but that is not a good arguments. Example of unique living organisms include bacteria, tardigrades, or paramecia.

Yes, but none of those are of the human species. A Hunan zygote is a unique living human organism, and I think history has shown us we must at least be very, very careful when we start arguing that some unique living human organisms are different enough from the unique living human organisms that matter that it should be morally acceptable to kill them.

Maybe this really is different from all the things about which we've later lamented, "Never again!" but we certainly ought not consider that criterion easily satisfied.

“Never again” has been said in a completely different context: fully developed humans killing other developed humans systematically on a huge scale across years. Don’t confuse ethnic cleanings and genocide with fully voluntary abortions, as sad as they may be.

"Never again" has been said in other contexts as well. E.g. slavery in the US. US slavery didn't exactly meet the definition of ethnic cleansing or genocide. The primary goal was economic.

Just because something isn't ethnic cleansing or genocide doesn't mean "never again" doesn't apply.

>fully developed humans

What's the definition of fully developed? Are physically and mentally disabled people fully developed? There have been large scale killings targeting them in particular. Are babies fully developed? There have been large scale killings that kill them.

> unique living human organisms are different enough from the unique living human organisms that matter that it should be morally acceptable to kill them

I think what we should care about isn’t human life, but human consciousness. A person in a vegetative state doesn’t suffer when you pull the plug. The difference matters and is unmistakable between large organisms which have gone through a long process of development and tiny ones which have not; we should reasonably presume that only one of the two is conscious given no further evidence.

The likely response is the potential argument, and I don’t care about that. I care about human suffering.

What about someone who is unconscious but will recover? Is it ok the pull the plug on that person? There won't be any suffering (unless friends or relatives mourn, but let's assume this person has no friends or relatives).

Regarding the size of the organism, and amount of time spent developing, what about a very early preemie who is unconscious but will recover?

In both cases I don’t think the plug should be pulled. In the first case, someone already had a complex experience with memories and dreams and whatnot and you’re contributing to them never waking up. The existence at some point in the past still matters.

In the second case there’s no reason at all to do something so drastic. Abortion is acceptable only because the mother’s body is being used and damaged, and she should have the right to prevent that use. The preemie doesn’t need to damage someone’s body to exist.

Edit: having read some of your other comments, I have a question for you. Why should we care about a zygote and not a sperm and an egg. Why is the act of fertilization the line between simple reproductive cells and a beautiful human life. Both have the potential to make a person, both are genetically human, both likely cannot experience things in a human-like way.

Are you genuinely not already aware of the biological difference between a (haploid) gamete and a (diploid) organism? This is like 7th grade science stuff, so I want to understand if you're questioning whether there is a difference or whether the difference matters.

Zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, adolescent, and adult are all different stages of the life cycle of a human organism. Gametes are not. Before fertilization, there are gametes. Unless fertilization happens, no organism comes into being. But once it does, it is the same organism from then all the way until its death. This is a biological reality, not a philosophical one.

Yes, I took high school biology like anyone else. I’m surprised you don’t get my point. What I’m getting at is that in a zygote, we can easily understand that the machinery is all there to lead with probability to the later development of a multicellular human. My contention is that this is no less true for a sperm and egg in close proximity. All the machinery is there. Shouldn’t preventing fertilization be equally monstrous to destroying the zygote, since both lead to the potential person never coming into being?

Previously you said "I think what we should care about isn’t human life, but human consciousness." Now you're saying something different about past memories, and I think even that an unconscious preemie shouldn't be killed, as long as it's not harming/damaging anyone. So I think you've changed your position.

Regarding your new position: if someone's body was being used and damaged, would it be ok to kill the unconscious preemie to prevent that?

>Edit: having read some of your other comments, I have a question for you. Why should we care about a zygote and not a sperm and an egg. Why is the act of fertilization the line between simple reproductive cells and a beautiful human life. Both have the potential to make a person, both are genetically human, both likely cannot experience things in a human-like way.

A zygote is a unique human organism. It has the full DNA of a human. It will grow into an adult human unless it dies for some reason. A sperm and an egg are not human organisms. Individually they don't have the full DNA of a human. A sperm won't grow into an adult human. An egg won't grow into an adult human.

Sorry I see why it’s confusing; I had assumed by it being able to survive outside the womb that it was relatively far along in development. By unconscious I don’t mean asleep, I mean the lights aren’t on and they aren’t experiencing from a perspective. There’d no longer be a moral issue if you magically knew this about the preemie, but we can make a reasonable best guess as to when such a thing becomes possible based on all current knowledge of the brain, and this is where I’d want abortion methods to switch to nonlethal. I don’t see a big difference between killing a fetus that’s incapable of consciousness and preventing the reproductive cells from uniting; they’re the same from the nonexistent perspective of the fetus.

The memories thing is different. Fundamentally, you’re not causing immediate suffering if you kill someone and they never know. The problem is that you can know they likely want to continue to live and you're violating their agency. The key difference with the fetus is that it has no and never has had the ability to want.

> Regarding your new position: if someone's body was being used and damaged, would it be ok to kill the unconscious preemie to prevent that?

I hope I’ve made clear why it’s not a new position. I presume we’re talking about a fetus fairly far along in development, such that we can have doubts about its possession of consciousness. In this case it’s a matter of triage, you do the least harm you can with the tools you have. Abortion methods should be nonlethal when possible out of an abundance of caution. Beyond that, mostly defer to what the mother wants and what risks she’s willing to take.

Fetal/child development is a continuum. The only 2 instances of big change are fertilization and birth, but birth is more a change of environment, not a change of the child.

The way that wants are experienced changes over time. The way a newborn experiences a want is different from the way a 5-year-old experiences a want. We can infer what an embryo wants by what actions the embryo is taking. The embryo is working to grow into an adult.

If we want to go by when brainwaves are detected, that's 5 weeks fetal age, 7 weeks gestational age. There are only 5 places in the world that allow abortion for some age but ban a 7-week-gestational-age abortion:

* Turkmenistan (although for economic or social reasons, it allows up to 22 weeks)

* The US states of Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina

* The Mexican state of Aguascalientes

In all 5 places, it's allowed later than 7 weeks in the case of rape.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law_by_country

>Fetal/child development is a continuum. The only 2 instances of big change are fertilization and birth, but birth is more a change of environment, not a change of the child.

I think the fact that these states constitute big changes is exactly why people intuitively latch on to them as points at which to assign moral value to a developing human. What I’m arguing is that the logic for this falls apart on closer examination, and that the only real reason I see to argue the conception idea comes from religious authority. Yet you haven’t used religion in your arguments so far, so why is it the point for you?

> The way that wants are experienced changes over time. The way a newborn experiences a want is different from the way a 5-year-old experiences a want. We can infer what an embryo wants by what actions the embryo is taking. The embryo is working to grow into an adult.

I absolutely understand this reasoning and I have a certain appreciation for it. The problem is, if you assign single-celled organisms the capacity to want from a perspective, yet you use the capacity to want as your bar for moral consideration, then you are more or less saying any organism of any scale should receive equal moral weight, yet seemingly arbitrarily deciding to restrict this to those with human dna. I don’t think that definition of want is useful; I think the capacity to want needs to be thought of as requiring conscious experience to make much sense here, which is also the thing I’m trying to assign value to.

> If we want to go by when brainwaves are detected, that's 5 weeks fetal age, 7 weeks gestational age.

You’re on the right track. I’m not trying to convince you of a specific cutoff, but of the logic I think should lead those developing a cutoff. I’d want experts in fetal development and brain development and so on to be the ones who decide so that risk of harm is minimized. I imagine there are studies on this; I’ve seen indications the result would be anywhere between 7-24 weeks, but I don’t know precisely when.

Is personhood development a continuum? Or does it happen in an instant? If it's a continuum, then for a period of time you have someone who's a partial person. That doesn't make sense to me. How can someone be a partial person? That's why I think it needs to happen in an instant. And the only 2 developmental instants are fertilization and birth.

I value a human's life more than any other animal's life. I think that's the same for most people. Without that, we might conclude that a dog's life is more valuable than a newborn baby's life, due to development time and abilities.

> 7-24 weeks

Curtis Means was born at gestational age 21 weeks 1 day and survived. If personhood might begin at 24 weeks, does that mean that Curtis might not have been a person when born?

> And the only 2 developmental instants are fertilization and birth.

Well not really though, neither takes place in an instant. Both are complex processes that span some time composed of numerous simultaneous and sequential steps. I think some kind of partial personhood is more or less a given because biological processes don’t really happen in discrete steps. As for how that might make sense, a very crude example might be coming out of anesthesia or being extremely drunk. These are states where memory, sense of self, and consciousness can fade in and out independently; perhaps partial consciousness is a reasonable thing. Certainly many of the things we consider essential to our internal sense of personhood develop gradually, like our sense of self and, for that matter, our senses of the external world. We don’t initially, as infants, know the difference between our body and the world. Does this make infants not people? No, not legally or morally, but in some sense they lack aspects we’d associate with personhood.

> Curtis Means was born at gestational age 21 weeks 1 day and survived. If personhood might begin at 24 weeks, does that mean that Curtis might not have been a person when born?

My intuition is that curtis would qualify, and that 21 weeks could be too late for lethal abortion methods. At the same time, if a baby were born braindead I wouldn’t assign it personhood. Being born isn’t enough.

I'm wary of classifying any group as partial people. That's been used as a justification throughout history for causing harm to groups of people.

>We don’t initially, as infants, know the difference between our body and the world. Does this make infants not people? No, not legally or morally, but in some sense they lack aspects we’d associate with personhood.

I agree. I think this supports my view, that someone can be morally a person, even when lacking aspects we'd associate with personhood.

In my opinion, they’re legally and morally treated as a person because it works in society, not because it expresses something fundamental about child development. It’s not an argument against abortion.

>I'm wary of classifying any group as partial people.

I think you need to in certain areas if you want to understand the world better is all. A braindead person isn’t the same as a non-braindead person, and there’s likely a continuum between them. My response is to suggest assigning a reasonable point between the two past which someone is a person.

>In my opinion, they’re legally and morally treated as a person because it works in society, not because it expresses something fundamental about child development. It’s not an argument against abortion.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. You seem to be agreeing there's not much difference between a fetus and an infant. But you're saying that this isn't an argument against abortion, because... are you saying killing a born infant is ok?

Nope, you’re reading way too far into it. Given that born infants almost certainly possess a kind of “partial personhood,” the reason we assign them full personhood isn’t out of recognition of observable fact, but out of practicality and necessity. It wouldn’t make sense to structure society in such a way that newborns weren’t people, and would likely result in lots of moral harm. The idea of partial personhood doesn’t work in law or politics, even if its biologically founded, so we should choose a cutoff point that makes the most sense and prevents the most harm before which we don’t consider fetuses people, and after which we do.

My worry is that if infants are only partial people, then people might come up with arguments that it's ok to kill them in some situations. And it opens the door to start classifying other people as partial people (e.g. disabled people). Which is why I say there's no such thing as a partial people.

But that was precisely my point. We shouldn’t classify anyone as partial people, which means we need to draw an intelligently chosen line separating the two. Choosing fertilization as this point seems irrational to me, and the consequence of this irrational choice harms an enormous number of women.

My point is that there isn't any point that can be chosen except fertilization, due to the continuum of development.

My response last time you said that was that fertilization is also a process which takes place on a continuum.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8406655/

> In mammals, fertilization involves multiple ordered steps, including the acrosome reaction, zona pellucida penetration, sperm–egg attachment, and membrane fusion.

All development is a continuum.

That's a good point. However, it doesn't mean fertilization isn't the point when personhood begins.

When choosing the point at which personhood begins, we should look at the stages of development to identify the most likely candidate. Fertilization is the most rapid period of development. Fertilization is the point at which the organism is formed. Before fertilization, there is no entity with a full set of DNA. After fertilization, there is an entity with a full set of DNA. Before fertilization, there is no entity that will typically grow into an adult human. After fertilization, there is an entity that will typically grow into an adult human. All these factors point to fertilization being when personhood begins.

If there were abortions that take place during the process of fertilization, then we would need to look into fertilization to determine exactly when during fertilization does personhood begin. But since that's not the case, we don't currently need to examine the substeps within fertilization to determine that. It's sufficient to say personhood begins some time during fertilization.

I think you and I look at the philosophical element of this really differently and it’s making it hard to agree. I think we tend, as humans, to use certain heuristics to navigate our world which are evolutionarily and socially defined. One of the most fundamental is our tendency to see “an object” rather than the parts of the object. Since we don’t have electron microscopes built into our heads, we wouldn’t get much out of looking at a rock as a collection of things rather than a single thing, but that’s what I think a rock is. A collection of many things which behave together, likely with near-infinite further divisibility. The choice of where to stop dividing in your perception of an object isn’t set somewhere in the fabric of the universe, it’s a product of what’s useful for your perception and reproduction.

The problem for me is when people make very fundamental moral claims about what I think they see as the nature of reality off the basis of these very important, but arbitrary in relation to some fixed universal morality, heuristics of perception. The idea that we are each only one thing, singular and indivisible, has historically been a very enticing idea, but I feel that science and philosophy for the last maybe hundred years have also been realizing and grappling with the idea that we’re more group organisms, that what makes us us isn’t the material that constitutes our bodies but the dynamics of our separate parts, the same way a society is found in the dynamics of relations between people more than the people themselves. This makes it hard for me to accept the idea that any stage of development could constitute a step change, not just from our arbitrary perspectives, but in the grand scheme of things (which is what matters morally). The dynamics between sperm and egg, when placed in close proximity, constitute a set of real forces acting in the world to bring about a person. The fact that two becomes one seems irrelevant to me; both the sperm-egg system or the zygote system of dynamic, interplaying forces may eventually bring a person about. The one undeniable fact that to me could make a person a person is sentience; conscious awareness, because in observing the fact of our own conscious experience we avoid making our determination on the basis of something arbitrary. To the experiencing person, there’s absolutely no doubt they’re experiencing. I think when we make our moral codes we should be doing so not to protect particular assemblies of matter or dynamic interplays of forces, but to make our best effort at bettering and protecting the desired continuity of subjective, conscious experience. It seems like the only rational thing for us to do.

We don’t know exactly when or why all the stuff of a human body leads to a conscious experience, but we do know certain things it’s correlated against, e.g. people without brains seem not to demonstrate conscious awareness. Absent more information, I think the best thing that we can do to protect and better conscious experiences in general is to select an intelligible point in development where we think all the “machinery” for consciousness is present in the fetus and draw the line on abortion there. If I’m correct, we avoid harming what I think matters as much as we really can.

> Before fertilization, there is no entity with a full set of DNA. After fertilization, there is an entity with a full set of DNA. Before fertilization, there is no entity that will typically grow into an adult human. After fertilization, there is an entity that will typically grow into an adult human.

I hope you can see what my response would be already. A full set of DNA isn’t morally significant in my opinion, nor is there a meaningful difference between an entity, here defined more as physical body, which will grow into an adult human and a collection of physical bodies which will do the same. If in some weird universe (Asimov story) our life cycle had us develop as three independent beings which merged together at a later age, my answer would be exactly the same. If the independent beings or something about their interaction can be reasonably thought to lead to conscious experience, then they’re worth the ethical consideration we give to people.

Is a newborn conscious? Is a dog conscious? If we want to value a newborn's life more than a dog, I think we need to consider more than just consciousness, but another factor: humanity.

So now there are 2 factors: continuation of consciousness and humanity. Is it possible 1 factor is more important than the other? There are several things that to me weaken the strength of the continuation of consciousness factor:

* It's continuation of consciousness instead of consciousness. Consciousness is somewhat intuitive. Continuation of consciousness is less so. Since it's a level removed from what's intuitive, that weakens the factor for me.

* Consciousness throughout life takes many forms. A newborn, an adult, someone with dementia, people with various other types of mental illnesses. It makes it hard to define consciousness.

* The fact that continuation of consciousness cannot stand by itself, it needs the other factor: humanity.

These 3 reasons make me think that humanity is more important than continuation of consciousness. In fact, I think humanity is so important that continuation of consciousness isn't essential. I think a human life is valuable even if consciousness hasn't developed yet.

> If in some weird universe (Asimov story) our life cycle had us develop as three independent beings which merged together at a later age, my answer would be exactly the same.

I'm not familiar with the story, but I think that's quite a different scenario. Those 3 beings each have value on their own, not because they might later merge into another being. Whereas a sperm and an egg have no value on their own.

The reason I dismiss the value of a sperm and an egg isn't because they can merge. If 3 adult humans could merge into 1 superhuman, I wouldn't dismiss the value of the pre-merged adult humans.

I say a zygote has value because it's a young human. It's growing into an adult human.

A sperm isn't a young human; it isn't growing into an adult human. An egg isn't a young human; it isn't growing into an adult human. A sperm and an egg that are nearby each other aren't a young human. Those 2 things aren't growing into an adult human. They might join or might not join. Or maybe some other sperm might zoom in real fast and fertilize the egg instead.

If the 3 independent beings were sitting in a room, would we call them 1 merged being? No. They're still 3 independent beings. Same with the sperm and the egg. Just because they're nearby each other doesn't make them a human life.

96% of biologists say human life beings at fertilization. Not when the sperm and egg are nearby each other.

> It's continuation of consciousness instead of consciousness.

It has to be. We need some interval of time to experience anything. Continuity also relates a lot to agency. Most people want to keep experiencing over dying.

> Consciousness throughout life takes many forms. A newborn, an adult, someone with dementia, people with various other types of mental illnesses. It makes it hard to define consciousness.

Consciousness is a very low bar honestly. Every one of the people mentioned would possess it in some form or another. You could use a different term if this one is too fuzzy.

> The fact that continuation of consciousness cannot stand by itself, it needs the other factor: humanity.

I think this is more a reflection of our current world than some perfectly ethical one. Since we’re humans, we’re always going to value our own offspring more than a dog. That’s deeply instinctual stuff. That doesn’t mean dogs aren’t richly conscious animals deserving of significant ethical consideration, but we’re not unbiased neutral observers in the matter. I’m just trying to come up with a consistent ethical approach to a narrow issue; for situations where two conscious things are being compared, you might be able to denote specific capacities, like recognition of self, by which you prioritize e.g. a person over a dog, but this is all very hypothetical and I don’t think we need it for the abortion debate.

> A sperm isn't a young human; it isn't growing into an adult human. An egg isn't a young human; it isn't growing into an adult human.

But they are? The only reason they try to fuse together at all is in service of the growth of a human.

> 96% of biologists say human life beings at fertilization. Not when the sperm and egg are nearby each other.

They’re not talking about personhood or something. They’re talking about something fundamentally classificatory, like asking “what makes a species separate from other species.” The usual answer is that they can’t breed with each other, but there are lots of kinda fuzzy exceptions and gray areas with that. To word it better, if I said “Presume the goal is to determine when, in the study of individual organisms, such organisms can be thought to come about. Tell me what stage in the development of a human comes first,” the answer would need to be around the time of fertilization because the question presumes the frame of biological study, the existence of an initial stage, etc.

> If the 3 independent beings were sitting in a room, would we call them 1 merged being? No. They're still 3 independent beings. Same with the sperm and the egg. Just because they're nearby each other doesn't make them a human life.

Right. By the same token, I don’t think a single cell constitutes a “human life”, with all the connotations that phrase carries. If it’s most appropriate to call that single cell a human life, then clearly human life isn’t the thing that determines ethical consideration. My fixation on the sperm + egg -> zygote transformation is a consequence of your belief that the left term isn’t morally significant but the right term is. I think everything that we care about is the same for both terms. Non-conscious, relatively simple mechanically compared to an adult, no nerves or brain, no awareness of the world, no hopes or dreams. The zygote lacks everything essential to personhood at this stage other than its human origin, which it shares with the sperm and egg.

>You could use a different term if this one is too fuzzy.

What would we use? Existence of brain waves? Existence of neurons? Those both would include most animals.

>like recognition of self, by which you prioritize e.g. a person over a dog

Babies cannot recognize themselves in the mirror until around 1.5 years old. Several types of animals can recognize themselves in the mirror: elephants, dolphins, primates, mice, some birds, some fish.

If we justify the value of babies by saying that they'll have certain abilities in the future, that same thing could be said about a zygote.

>> A sperm isn't a young human; it isn't growing into an adult human. An egg isn't a young human; it isn't growing into an adult human.

>But they are? The only reason they try to fuse together at all is in service of the growth of a human.

Sure the only reason they fuse is in service of the growth of a human. However, before fusing, a sperm only has half the DNA of a human. A sperm's DNA doesn't define a human, and isn't sufficient to grow into a human, and thus cannot be called a young human. Same for an egg. A zygote has the full DNA of a human, which defines a human, and thus the zygote can grow into a human, and thus the zygote can be called a young human.

>>Just because they're nearby each other doesn't make them a human life.

>Right. By the same token, I don’t think a single cell constitutes a “human life”

That's not the same token. I was saying that 2 (or 3) things being nearby each other doesn't make them 1 entity. You're talking about whether a single entity has certain abilities or not. Those are 2 different discussions.

>What would we use? Existence of brain waves? Existence of neurons? Those both would include most animals.

Relating this back to abortion, existence of brain waves is a higher bar than existence of neurons is a higher bar than fertilization. If I could convince you to care about either of those instead, then sure let’s run with that.

The question with abortion is “at what point are we concerned that killing something could be unethical.” For the criteria to include some or even most animals isn’t a terrible thing; we probably shouldn’t kill animals willy nilly.

>>like recognition of self, by which you prioritize e.g. a person over a dog

>Babies cannot recognize themselves in the mirror until around 1.5 years old. Several types of animals can recognize themselves in the mirror: elephants, dolphins, primates, mice, some birds, some fish.

>If we justify the value of babies by saying that they'll have certain abilities in the future, that same thing could be said about a zygote.

If I recall correctly, I was explicitly talking about how we might go about evaluating and comparing ethical worth beyond the developmental scale relevant to abortion, and I said this was just hypothetical. I wasn’t arguing recognition of self is relevant to abortion.

>However, before fusing, a sperm only has half the DNA of a human. A sperm's DNA doesn't define a human, and isn't sufficient to grow into a human, and thus cannot be called a young human.

I don’t consider the “completeness of DNA” philosophically relevant. The sperm-egg system, both considered together, does have a complete set of DNA. Why does the physical separation change the fundamental ethical nature of interfering with the process? If I have a sperm and egg very close to each other, about to merge, and place a barrier between them, why wouldn’t this be as ethically horrifying as immediately destroying the product of their merging?

>I was saying that 2 (or 3) things being nearby each other doesn't make them 1 entity.

Let’s agree my argument and analogy were poor. Why does entity-ness matter to ethics? When you say entity, are you referring to a physical body, or to a unified consciousness? Is a rock an entity? What about an amoeba?

>For the criteria to include some or even most animals isn’t a terrible thing; we probably shouldn’t kill animals willy nilly.

Do you believe that killing a baby is morally worse than killing an innocent dog or elephant? And what is the reasoning for that belief?

Do you believe that killing an innocent adult is morally worse than killing a baby? And what is the reasoning for that belief?

I believe that killing a baby is worse than killing an innocent dog or elephant, because human life has intrinsic value significantly greater than non-human animal life.

I believe that killing an innocent adult and a baby are equally bad, because all people have equal value.

>I don’t consider the “completeness of DNA” philosophically relevant. The sperm-egg system, both considered together, does have a complete set of DNA. Why does the physical separation change the fundamental ethical nature of interfering with the process?

If they're physically separated, we don't have an entity that could be called a young human. We don't have an entity that contains a plan for how to grow into an adult.

After they've joined, we do have an entity that could be called a young human.

>If I have a sperm and egg very close to each other, about to merge, and place a barrier between them, why wouldn’t this be as ethically horrifying as immediately destroying the product of their merging?

No. In the same way that it's not horrifying if some other sperm zoomed in real fast and fertilized the egg and blocks off the first sperm. Before fertilization, there is no entity that could be called a young human.

>Why does entity-ness matter to ethics?

There's no known way a single person can be composed of 2 physical entities. So I say that when there are 2 physical entities, there isn't a single person composed of the 2 of them.

Another line of reasoning is why should there be a moral difference between a sperm and egg very close to each other and a sperm and egg miles apart? I don't see any reason. We would have to consider every possible pair of sperm and egg in the world as a person, which doesn't make sense.

>When you say entity, are you referring to a physical body, or to a unified consciousness?

Physical body. There's no known way a person can be split across 2 bodies. So a sperm and an egg can't be a person.

>Is a rock an entity? What about an amoeba?

Yes and yes.

Just achieving the definition of alive doesn't grant you power over other human beings. It is not personhood.

Ethics are more complicated than a black and white definition of when a magical boundary has been achieved.

I agree the personhood question is more complicated than the definition of life. And I agree that ethics are more complicated than just the definition of personhood.

However, regarding the question of personhood, I wonder, when does it begin?

Does it begin at birth? I think not, because a fetus a few days before birth is essentially no different from a newborn in terms of development and abilities. There's quite a wide variance in how soon or late a baby can be born and survive.

Does it begin some time between fertilization and birth? I think not, because that entire time is a period of continual growth. There's no instant where the fetus is suddenly transformed. The fetus is getting older, developing. Similar to how a born baby gets older and develops. If personhood were to begin in this stage, it would have to be gradual, meaning partial personhood for some period of time. But that doesn't make sense. How can someone be a partial person?

I'm not talking about a magical boundary. I'm talking about (a) a biological boundary, and (b) the question of personhood, neither of which are magic.

Ehh, if you actually look up what a 16 week fetus looks like and is capable of you wouldn’t say that. It has eyes, ears, hands that open and close. Basically an avocado-sized baby.

I'm not doing any such thing. I'm just answering what's in the minds of many ethicists.

Even younger now. Initial screening is done at like 8 weeks by extracting the mothers blood and examining the chromosomes in the fetal cells.

I love animals, I love people, I love dancing Down-syndrome people.

The question is who is responsible for them and what it means to those or society.

Let those ethicists take care of a Down-syndrome person one year, then ask them again.

About lifestyle and such.

Ethicize can everybody. The real questions are more down to earth. Pun not intended.

By the way, my partner and I are of different views and because of her I know there are very different types, some are totally self sufficient and work.

As always, truth is somewhere in between. Do not eradicate, let people choose. There will be people who terminate, others will not. Let those people pay a share who take the risk and then put their child to social care. But be human and society should help and pay a big ahsre too.

How much? I have no idea. We would need the exact numbers, other social projects, a good discussion forum, tests before people comment. I probably have no ida about Down syndrome and still, I am just being commenting.

I think generally a big misunderstanding that there is one solution and one way. We should always just find a middle way, listening to each other, learning, voting, discussing. Keeping freedom of choice and responsibility of own choices in balance.

I've heard this expressed as existence versus life. Nobody owes it to to give up their life for the life of another, let alone if all that can be hoped for is the mere existence of another.

> Many ethicists

Isn't it only just Vegans?

Because it's a form of eugenics, however far down the spectrum it may be.

edit: I mean to imply here that the overton window is shifted, basically.

It's not eugenics, because Down syndrome is not inherited. There is no Down's genes to eliminate. Terminating down syndrome babies doesn't reduce the rate of Down syndrom in the next generation, and nobody is doing it for that goal.

Down syndrome can totally be inherited. If a mother has Down syndrome, the risk of passing the genetic condition onto their future children is 35% to 50%.

Only a few percent of Down’s syndrome cases result from Robertson translocations and may be inherited.

If the mother carries the translocation, the rate of recurrence isn’t much more than 10%. If it’s the father, it’s significantly less.

There's a huge range of chromosomal anomalies. You don't see the vast majority of them because the pregnancy self terminates. It's something the human body is already doing.

People with down syndrome are great people who live rich lives. But along with developmental disabilities they suffer from a great many health problems and have severely shortened life spans. Perhaps the future is such therapies will be able to initially focus on these secondary effects.

I don't think methods of preventing chromosomal anomalies are eugenics, since such anomalies are already not inheritable.

Correcting what is essentially a developmental defect (albeit a defect that occurs in the germ cells rather than in the womb) isn't eugenics. It's not caused by any genes carried by the parents, it's caused by a failure in the development process, specifically meiosis. Would preventing fetal alcohol syndrome be eugenics? It's caused by changes in gene expression from alcohol exposure after all.

Using a loaded term such as "defect" is exactly eugenics sophistry.

Is "birth defect" a eugenically-charged word? I've never heard it used in such a manner, just as a matter of fact.

don't seriously engage with people who would rather morally grandstand and tone police than have important conversations

Stating something is sophistry is not tone policing. Pointless to explain this to those who lack critical thinking skills in the first place. Rather, it is you who are doing the policing from a self-assured conservativism so common to the HN crowd, it is time someone pointed this out. There's no good faith engagement under such a context.

If you want to call it an error, or simply a change, I'm happy to make the argument on those terms. Changes in the development process that leave a child disabled for life, but which can be prevented, such as FAS through alcohol abstinence, spina bifida through folic acid intake, and (if this research can be translated into a treatment) Down Syndrome through the targeted removal of the superfluous chromosome, should be prevented. And don't tell me kids with these conditions aren't disabled, because that dog won't hunt.

None of your arguments fly. Try to think like an programmer--kick the corner case of the arguments. I'm not suggesting anything other than pointing out that most arguments on here have been well trodden by ethicists and even they have no consensus. My personal belief about the specific issue is not even relevant. My objection is the low quality of argument (by several commenters) demonstrating a kind of prejudiced take, I find that the most offensive.

Here you moved from defect to disabled. I don't have to personally say that a group are/aren't disabled, to yet again point out your argument rests on an assumed definition otherwise yet another form of word loading. This is a really basic critical thinking skills example independent of the topic.

Are you suggesting that by aborting a fetus with Down Syndrome, the fetus is then cured of Down Syndrome? You’re not really correcting the developmental defect insomuch as eliminating the fetus that had the defect.

The context here is that there's evidence crispr CAS-9 can be used to repair damage to the genome by specifically targeting and deleting the extra third chromosome inside a living cell. I don't know why you'd assume I'm talking about abortion.

people should stop accepting that all forms of eugenics is "bad" - it's become so morally loaded that people like you are afraid to bite the bullet. We should be ok with having discussions about whether avoiding bringing children into the world with greatly reduced quality of life (or even pain-filled existences) is something we should be doing even though it's "eugenics"

I actually think it's reasonable to accept terms as they are if their definition has a long history. If eugenics means a system of forced sterilization intended to unfairly prevent certain people from having kids, (and it has for over half a century) that's fine. I can come up with another term to refer to practices such as embryo screening and we can all agree that eugenics was a very bad thing and would be bad if we tried to bring it back in the future. What I object to is then using a very loaded term outside of that original context to smear people that are making very hard choices, like parents trying to conceive a healthy child

Dating apps and services with a beauty/salary standard and long prison sentences for the worst criminals are also a form of eugenics. Many kinds of societal and political changes have a eugenic or dysgenic effect on the population, and I'd prefer to live in a society that has more eugenic policies.

People in privileged or powerful positions often would.

People have an aversion to the word "eugenics" because it's often connected to atrocity propaganda from World War II.

I'm not suggesting that every country should have genetic purity tests and policies on the level of Israel, just that we should understand that policies affect what kinds of people are more likely to be produced.

What policies post World War II have had eugenic effects on the population?

The policy forced sterilization of indigenous people that went on from the postwar period up until the start of the 21st century is an excellent example.

No they aren't, because they're not directed at anyone in particular.

The main evil of WW2 eugenics was preventing certain people from having children based on arbitrary rules.

Aborting a fetus with trisomia so that the couple can try again for a healthy child is nothing like that.

It's no less arbitrary than deciding that gypsies, who engage in petty crime and mistreat their children, forcing them to become beggars and thieves themselves, should not reproduce. If anything, Down kids probably bring more good to society than gypsy kids. And forced sterilization is arguably more ethical than forced abortion. Same things goes for alcoholics and drug users. Privately, most people agree with this position. The idea that eugenics is inherently bad is very unsound and doesn't withstand scrutiny.

Can't agree here. Regarding gypsies it boils down to the culture and rates of stunting, as evidenced by families who broke off the former and prevented the latter.

The way people with trisomia function in society is also a product of our nurturing culture. It's only recently, when such people started living longer lives thanks to advances in medical science, that their intellectual development gained more attention and it was revealed that they can actually be more independent than commonly believed.

That being said it all requires a huge amount of effort and if a person with trisomia has siblings, they're very likely to be deprived of attention. Additionally, if they're a first child, they're the only one due to this. That is what makes it a net negative.

> if they're a first child, they're the only one due to this

Are you saying people don't have more kids after having a first kid with Trisomy 21?

When you consider with which woman to conceive children, consciously or unconsciously, you are engaging in eugenics. It’s fine. Forced sterilizations aren’t but we’re not talking about those.

There isn’t a set of magic words people use (eugenics, isms/phobias) where the person accused of said word must prove that’s not the case before he can continue. “It’s eugenics” isn’t a reason to shut someone down.

I don't disagree, but this doesn't change general opinion on the topic. People don't like discussing the idea that we should just delete anyone not up to standard.

A 3 month old fetus is not a person and therefore doesn't count under "anyone"

That's a bit arbitrary though, isn't it? I mean, are newborn babies really people? The Romans didn't think so. I don't see the big philosophical difference. They can't earn money or pay taxes, and are 100% dependent on parental care and resources.

And how about sleeping people? I mean they're unaware of their surroundings. Are sleeping people real people? Sure, they'll inevitably wake up in a few hours, if nothing goes wrong. Same as how a fetus will inevitably develop into an adult and be fully conscious, if nothing goes wrong.

> Same as how a fetus will inevitably develop into an adult and be fully conscious, if nothing goes wrong.

Unless it dies in pain and suffering hours, days, months or a few years after birth due to a defect that we already know can never be cured or fixed by other means. Somehow societies that are least interested or capable in providing any aid to these traumatized families revel the most in their suffering.

That's a special case and the same argument / situation can apply to adults too. But only with extreme caution in both cases.

You say that as if that's an accepted fact. Many people agree with what you say. Many disagree.

There's no scientific evidence for what you're saying.

I do wonder if the elimination of all genotypes with Down's Syndrome would also result in a significant reduction in beneficial or benign genes.

I've had smart pets. I've never had children. I sometimes envision smart pets as like an X-year old child with Y-year old trait, almost as a person with a disability. If a child can't achieve independence and a life of their own, why let all parties suffer through that ordeal?

I'm a bit torn on this. We're all dependent on other people one way or another. Individuals with Downs are more dependent, but it's a spectrum and they can still have meaningful lives. Meanwhile healty "independent" individuals can live entirely tragic and arguably pointless lives devoid of love and filled with anger.

That said, I'm still pro screening for Downs in fetuses. What I'm trying to say is that I'd do the screening for me as the parent. Not for the person to be born.

Why do you think people with Down syndrome can’t “achieve independence and a life of their own”? And what makes you think they, or their families, see their existence as suffering?

> Why do you think people with Down syndrome can’t “achieve independence and a life of their own”?

Based on the anecdotes here. 5 in support, 3 against as of now. I wasn't expecting such a spread, so I did a bit of research. The cognitive problems, though possibly quite severe are not so as frequently as I had assumed. Whereas the medical complications tend to be commonly nasty. As for independence there's a lot of advocacy material claiming so, but reading between the lines and in conjunction with reddit and quota testimony, I suspect very few qualify.

> And what makes you think they, or their families, see their existence as suffering?

I'm sorry, what? Those with Down's Syndrome are people, with all the emotions and experiences that entails. If they are supported, nurtured and loved then they'll lead correspondingly happy lives.

> I'm sorry, what? Those with Down's Syndrome are people, with all the emotions and experiences that entails. If they are supported, nurtured and loved then they'll lead correspondingly happy lives.

Heartily agree! My question was a reaction to the last line in the parent comment:

> If a child can't achieve independence and a life of their own, why let all parties suffer through that ordeal?

I’m sorry that I didn’t make that as clear as I could have.

* * *

I’ve seen the negativity on Reddit and, now, here. Some of that is based on historical reality: the standards for medical care and early intervention have dramatically improved outcomes for people with DS even just in my lifetime. It turns out that if you don’t believe a child is capable of, say, reading, then you don’t bother teaching them to read. This becomes a self-fulfilling diagnosis. And not too long ago, many kids with DS had inner ear damage from undetected ear infections, leading to hearing loss and difficulty communicating. As we learn more about what’s possible and what needs monitoring in kids with DS, long-term outcomes get better and better.

This recent (~last 20-40 years) improvement means there’s still a visible cohort of people who didn’t receive that level of care and probably are less independent. But I’d also suggest that there’s sample bias in anecdotes on Reddit. Like with product reviews: the vast majority in the middle don’t bother to post, and negative experiences get more emotional traction than positive ones.

The range of associated medical conditions is long and scary. But no individual gets all, or even many, of those conditions. And a lot of the scariest/most complicated stuff is correctable early post-natal (heart surgeries are common) or end of life (early appearance of dementia is unfortunately still the likely outcome for most people with DS). Medicine continues to make progress, and I think outcomes will continue to dramatically improve.

You may not agree with my original point. Raising someone with Down's Syndrome is a high risk venture requiring significant capital (physical therapy, speech therapy, medical interventions and surgeries), a large support network (boots on the ground), and an endowment for continuing care once the original parent is no longer capable. Most people cannot afford to provide this, in which case the experience becomes an ordeal for everyone involved, parent and child. If a parent decides to proceed regardless and forewarned then they are possibly being emotionally selfish and a perhaps would be better suited with a pet rather than a child.

because alot of times when they do it makes the news and because when it does happen.. it usually happens in (very few) "first world countries"?

The government taxes you to pay me to assist these people.

As for suffering... their families DON'T care for them. That's why I'm paid to do it for them. People avoid what causes them suffering, so the absence of voluntary caretakers is evidence enough.

Most people with Down Syndrome require a huge support network to achieve anything resembling "independence".

Their parents (usually the mother) will end up spending all of their time to care for the kid. Other kids in the family will either be neglected or will have to help care for their disabled sibling.

When they leave home, they usually move to care facilities were multiple employees care for them.

Caring for people with Down Syndrome is a huge burden both on the individual and on society. It's something we do because we believe that everyone has a right to a fulfilled life, and because humans are generally compassionate creatures.

But if we have the choice, 95% of us chose not to have a baby with down syndrome.

You’re talking about a human person and making the case that the world would be better off if they had never been born.

Yes, that is a legitimate argument to make in a cruel, uncaring (most of the time) world. Lots of regretful parents out there who would take it back if they could. All life is temporary. Quality of life for all involved is a material consideration.

> Yes, that is a legitimate argument to make in a cruel, uncaring (most of the time) world.

No, it isn’t. “I wish you didn’t exist because your existence inconveniences me,” is a step away from “I should be able to kill you because you inconvenience me.”

You will likely think that I am being hyperbolic (“We’re just talking about if it was a good idea for these people to exist, not saying we should be able to kill them now that they do exist.”), but I suspect that you would not feel the same way if it was your existence being discussed this way.

Yes, very similar to how in the decades after abortion was legalized nationally in the US, it gradually northern to our current state where it is legal to kill your own children any time before they turn 18.

Oh wait, no, that didn't happen, because in both your and my case it turns out humans are able to distinguish between life that is and life that might be. The "step" you mentioned is only a small one in a philosophical sense, enormous otherwise to the point of not being a concern.

> it gradually northern to our current state where it is legal to kill your own children any time before they turn 18.

They’re trying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcHzaWyB21A

That video is about abortion. Before birth. So no, they're not trying.

In the video they are discussing the prospect of aborting the pregnancy as the child is being born.

This is a great example because it strengthens the original one I was making; that despite pearl-clutching about what something "could allow", the actual bad thing that they're concerned about never happens. It's just a distraction tactic.

Plenty of states, like Alaska and Oregon, already allow abortion right up to the moment of birth. They don't happen, ever, zero times, except in cases where somebody is going to die otherwise.

The handwringing over "omg they're killing children" actually just kills both children and mothers by making lifesaving procedures illegal. People don't carry unwanted babies to term unless forced to do so.

Thus making it illegal to abort a full-term baby does nothing but score political points, at the expense of the deaths of some mothers who desperately wanted a child and then had some complications.

It's happening in Canada right now. They are pressuring inconvenient individuals to take their lives.

what is your opinion of the state assisting people to survive when their caregivers die? and what of thr caregivers who cannot work, or cannot afford care?

Primary care duties and costs should remain with caregivers except in cases of neglect or deprivation. Additional healthcare burdens (e.g. development psychologists, medication, etc.) should be covered by the state. When caregivers die, the subject is assigned a social worker to ensure his wellbeing. If no other caregiver can be found, he becomes a ward of the state.

Socializing the costs this way has its own ethical problems, especially where the parents continue to reproduce after learning they are carriers; I’ve simply concluded that the costs of care are completely negligible when you contrast them with the loss of human dignity that results from valuing an individual human on the basis of economic cost or contribution.

Yes, I do think you’re being hyperbolic. We’re waging a life that doesn’t exist yet against two parents and possible a healthy child that could be.

Accommodating for a human that exists, if suffering, is clearly a moral obligation. Doing so when it’s not a human but a husk still is not, and deciding in favour of the very human parents—who also have a right to happiness—is definitely ethically valid.

In a related discussion, someone argued that keeping up industrial farming is just, because if we stopped doing so all the cattle that wouldn’t been born would be worse off for never being alive, even if their existence was suffering, because suffering is better than not being at all. I firmly believe this is just wrong. Before a being gains consciousness, it’s not a being and doesn’t experience, hence by avoiding their conception we also avoid unnecessary suffering.

So what if one doesn't exist yet and another could be? Then both are possibilities. Your sentences look superifically logical but they make no actual sense.

I'm not sure I get your point. Care to elaborate? In one case, we're talking about assured suffering. In the other, the absence of suffering. Both are hypothetical, but in one case, we know about the outcome. There's obviously a difference here.

When you saying something like "we are talking about assured suffering" it is so unrigorous I cannot even begin to reply. Maybe read some philosophical literature. Or just the 5 w's like in grade school. Who suffers? Why is suffering bad? Why this comparison and not other comparative demarfations? What about second-order social effects? Could that increase suffering in some way? Serious ethicists grapple with these questions because they cannot assume a premise of 20th century nuclear-family hypotheticals (your error) removed from the societal context. And so on.

> In a related discussion, someone argued that keeping up industrial farming is just, because if we stopped doing so all the cattle that wouldn’t been born would be worse off for never being alive, even if their existence was suffering, because suffering is better than not being at all. I firmly believe this is just wrong. Before a being gains consciousness, it’s not a being and doesn’t experience, hence by avoiding their conception we also avoid unnecessary suffering.

You bring up an interesting argument, but I think there is some nuance here. I am not arguing that we have an obligation to propagate human life for the sake of propagating human life; I just think there is a risk of devaluing existing human life by claiming it ought not to have existed in the first place.

There are limitations here. e.g. if one is offended at the claim that Down Syndrome is something to be cured, it may be that one is placing too much emphasis on identifying the expression of an individual’s genes with the individual himself (so e.g. eliminating the extra chromosome is not analogous to eliminating the person himself). We wouldn’t do this with a broken bone, but the solution to a broken bone is setting the bone, whereas the “solution” to Down Syndrome has historically been abortion.

I do feel the same way of my existence being discussed this way. Would anything be different had I not existed? No, besides my brief life experience and interactions I’ve had with other humans not occurring. I wouldn’t have even known I never existed. Is that good or bad? Right or wrong? No, it just is.

> Would anything be different had I not existed? No, besides my brief life experience and interactions I’ve had with other humans not occurring.

“Besides” is doing a lot of work here.

We perhaps disagree about the value of the human experience based on lived experiences.

Why is that bad? When the topic is abortion, not being born is considered a good thing for the child, whose life prospects aren't so good on account of the economic conditions of his mother.

> not being born is considered a good thing for the child

I can’t speak for the parent commenter of course, but this is by no means a universally accepted truth.

Those sound like capitalism problems, not medical ones, to be probably too honest (HN doesn't generally vibe with class consciousness because so many tech bros sell out or dream of selling out one day, but). Society can afford to have support systems for people with disabilities and their supportive family, as evidenced by the fact that it is currently doing so indirectly (by paying enough for the husband's labor that he can make finances work for the three of them). The fact that the husband in your scenario bears all of that for everyone else (and it creates an unhealthy dependency in their relationship) because we only value the under classes for their contribution of labor is the problem, and is solvable.

Forget the economic aspect of it, what about the emotional and mental cost something like Downs Syndrome imparts, for both parents? I can't imagine any parent hoping they will have a child that will be utterly dependent on them for their entire lives. It's not at all to say they do not love their children as they are, but nobody seeks to become a parent hoping their child will have severe developmental disabilities. While some may choose not to terminate the pregnancy, I think most parents would think twice before conceiving if they knew with reasonable certainty before the fact.

Why do you think that people with Down syndrome are “utterly dependent on [their parents] for their entire lives”? All children come with a severe “emotional and mental cost”, have you seen the world today??

We knew with (well beyond) reasonable certainty that our son would have Down syndrome and chose to continue the pregnancy. We’re not religious and not part of any pro-birth political cohort; it was absolutely an affirmative choice.

Because I grew up across the street from a forty-year-old woman with it. She will be dependent on her parents for the rest of her life. Still lives there. They make the best of it, but frankly, their lives pretty much suck (though she seems very happy with hers). They are no longer people but first and foremost caregivers. All parents have a stage of that but it’s temporary.

I’d imagine some downs patients have more or less functionality and independence, but seems pretty much the whole distribution is just too low for them to be independent.

If y’all are happy, it’s not really my place to comment on that. But this is one of the things that makes me nervous about having kids in future.

The issue isn’t that like all kids they come with emotional complications and caregiving. The issue is I saw these neighbors spend literally two decades trapped in Groundhog Day. They never progressed past it. Well into retirement and they were stuck in this. I’m not sure if they’ve passed now or where she is, but if they’re still alive, I’d guess they’re still in Groundhog Day. Same thing forever.

Years ago, my uncle worked in a home with a group of people with these sorts of conditions. Many were downs and needed help but families would or couldn’t provide it. It’s not just needing more attention, you have to change the way you live. Like one day, two other guys were taking them on a trip somewhere. On the way back they stop for gas, one guys filling up, the other runs in and grabs a slurpee. One of the downs guys says he wants a slurpee (he’s not supposed to have them for whatever reason.) no, can’t have that. But he wants a slurpee. Repeat ad infinitum. Winds up they’re a block away driving and this guy tries to jump out of the car to run back and get a slurpee. Uncle explained to slurpee guy later you literally can’t get anything without giving it to everyone. It’s like kindergarten logic. You have to live that way. Every day, forever.

I have another reply in this tree talking about outcomes and independence being much worse not even all that long ago. I won’t repeat it all here but it squares with what you observed in an older neighbor growing up.

Also: did they tell you they were miserable or felt stuck in Groundhog Day? If not, then it’s not a safe assumption. AFAIK many caretakers and family members report satisfaction with their lives despite the added complications. (Maybe your neighbors really were miserable, and if so, just know it’s not the norm anymore.)

The early genetic testing for Down syndrome is pretty accurate now. If it’s still a major worry for you about having kids, get the testing done early enough to terminate. I strongly hope that no one terminates out of ignorance about the realities - both positive and negative - of Down syndrome, but have no problem at all with informed choices.

People with Down syndrome aren’t “downs” or “downs patients”, though. It’s easy to dismiss this as language policing or, as another thread hinted at, performative. But the words we use and how we view the world are part of a feedback loop on each other. Synecdoche-izing people as merely a medical diagnosis colors whether society treats them as full members or not. And unlike, say, the Deaf or autism communities, it’s not currently a subculture or something that many people with Down syndrome identify as.

As an internet stranger, I’m asking folks to consider using “person with DS” instead of “DS patient/person/etc”.

I wonder how familiar you are with the reality of a life with DS today. Certainly some children with DS are dependent their entire lives, but others marry, have jobs, support themselves, teach others, etc. And on the whole, both individuals with DS and their family members report higher levels of happiness and satisfaction with their lives than others.

I can say with absolute sincerity that if I happen to conceive a child with DS, I will feel like I won the genetic lottery. Not saying you do or should have the same values, but dismissing the experience of the families who do have these children in them because you have a different set of values that would make it undesirable for you isn't fair either.

In a better-constructed society, that child isn't dependent upon them alone their entire lives. "It takes a village" isn't just about things like education.

(I observe people struggling to care for elderly parents while also trying to be highly-successful rugged individuals and I'm struck by hoe, for want of a better phrase, anti-human that self-made goal is. Real people need help. In all stages of their lives. We have convinced ourselves that need is weakness).

HN doesn't generally vibe with class consciousness because their high income makes them far more aligned with the "capitalist class" just like how a small business owner is much more aligned with the worker class despite being workers and business owners respectively, since it turns out that people do not value their theoretical "class" since it has no relevance to their life.

No. They want to believe that, but the reality is that even in this little bubble (with a median income multiple times that of general population's median), anyone that works for a living is far more likely to experience homelessness than they are to join economic elites. Sure, you're able to be comfortable because unlike most of the economy you are compensated well, but you should still have worker solidarity (and humility).

Let me put it another way by making it less personal to tech: Hollywood celebrities, wildly successful people that basically everyone knows their names and faces, are still workers. Million dollar contracts BUT only if they play ball with the system and don't get themselves blacklisted for being too political or being too inconvenient saying no too many times to staring in soulless Disney slop, or whatever. They can retire early on that kind of money, get to a kind of stable non-participant status, sure, they can place pressure on their industry and on society to change to some degree, but they'll never call the shots because they don't write the checks.

Does your sister-in-law have family who could support her and the child?

> She can no longer work, so they now struggle on a single income, if her husband were to leave her she would be completely screwed.

This is not inherent to Down's syndrome, this is because we live in a society that could easily support people but doesn't.

It's very easy to ask everyone else to support your financial decisions.

It’s also very easy to expect the poor to subsidize your lifestyle by making $7.25/hr. Everything has perspectives.

That's not how subsidization works at all.

Until people like you figure that out, you're going to continue to be sorely disappointed with your political progress, because your "perspective" is not remotely logical.

Aren't you obligated to make sense though? Not just pretend you made a parallel argument?

Financial decisions like renting a place to sleep in safety, or eating.

Why didn’t she get screened? She didn’t have to carry to term, she did it to herself.

It is always about exerting control over female bodies. Not rational, but evolutionary residue.

..and as expected, men here fail to get it.

Their compulsive erasure of female voices across the internet is just the same impulse of control.

On one hand, parents are making personal choices based on the information available to them... on the other, when nearly an entire population starts selecting against a certain condition, it starts to feel less like individual choice and more like a societal value judgment.

According to a NYT article from 2022, there's a high false positive.

Title: When They Warn of Rare Disorders, These Prenatal Tests Are Usually Wrong Authors: Sarah Kliff & Aatish Bhatia

https://web.archive.org/web/20250712195745/https://www.nytim...