Gottfried's question of what is an "actual" individual

Gottfried wrote in in the thread "Pro-Lifer's Guilty of Murder"

I'm curious as to what exactly you think qualifies as an "actual person." In order for your moral grievance to be legit, you need to provide a demonstration showing that embryos do not qualify as "actual individuals."

Instead of reinventing the wheel since there is a ton of Objectivist literature already addressing this question/distinction of "actual" individual and a "potential" individual I'll post some useful links here:

http://www.theobjectivistcenter.org/cth--1218-Abortion.aspx

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=12633&news_iv_ctrl=1087

There is no scientific reason to characterize a raisin-size lump of cells as a human being. Biologically speaking, such an embryo is far more primitive than a fish or a bird. Anatomically, its brain has yet to develop, so in terms of its capacity for consciousness, it doesn't bear the remotest similarity to a human being. This growth of cells has the potential to become a human being--if preserved, fed, nurtured, and brought to term by the woman that it depends on--but it is not actually a human being. Analogously, seeds can become mature plants--but that hardly makes a pile of acorns equal to a forest.

As the above excerpt states, a seed is not itself a plant. It has the potential to become one but it is not an actual plant. Likewise embryonic stem cells may have the potential to become an individual, but that doesn't make them an individual. Only individuals have rights. Not things that have the potential to become one. It can't be murder to destroy an embryo because an embryo is not a person. It is not a thinking, living, person with wants, desires and values. And to sacrifice the needs and values of the living to the non-living is immoral. When actual individuals are suffering from diseases like Parkinsons and Cancer, to deny research that could hold the cure to these diseases is to condemn billions of people to premature death and immense suffering. I hold the Catholic view on this simply as anti-life. To deny living people the potential benefits of scientific research into embryonic stem cells is nothing but murder.

(Edited by John Armaos on 8/30, 9:39pm)

Post 1

Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 4:22pm

Instead of reinventing the wheel since there is a ton of Objectivist literature already addressing this question/distinction of "actual" individual and a "potential" individual I'll post some useful links here:

I appreciate the links.

There is no scientific reason to characterize a raisin-size lump of cells as a human being.

How is size relevant? "Lump of cells" seems to used pejoratively. You and I are also essentially lumps of cells, just larger ones. What do you mean by "scientific reason"? Is there a scientific reason to characterize the object flat-piece-of-wood-supported-by-four-legs as a table?

Biologically speaking, such an embryo is far more primitive than a fish or a bird.

Obviously.

Anatomically, its brain has yet to develop, so in terms of its capacity for consciousness, it doesn't bear the remotest similarity to a human being.

Yes, its brain has yet to develop fully, but it nevertheless is developing. An embryo in a few years time will enjoy the full experience of consciousness. Similarly, a person hospitalized in a comatic state may lack consciousness for a few years before regaining it.

This growth of cells has the potential to become a human being--if preserved, fed, nurtured, and brought to term by the woman that it depends on--but it is not actually a human being.

The only difference between a comatose person who regains consciousness and an embryo who gains it for the first time is that the former loses consciousness and enters a state of hiatus, while the latter develops into a conscious state. Both experience an interval of unconsciousness. Both would die if not preserved, nurtured, and fed, regardless of whether they find themselves in a womb or a hospital bed.

Analogously, seeds can become mature plants--but that hardly makes a pile of acorns equal to a forest.

The vast difference between an acorn and an embryo is highlighted by the vast difference between a tree and a mature person.

As the above excerpt states, a seed is not itself a plant. It has the potential to become one but it is not an actual plant. Likewise embryonic stem cells may have the potential to become an individual, but that doesn't make them an individual.

Although twinning can occur up to 14 days, "most unborn babies with their accessory tissues develop from a single zygote and are alone in developing from that zygote." The continuity evinces individuality.

Only individuals have rights. Not things that have the potential to become one

There is good reason to classify an embryo as a per se individual.

It can't be murder to destroy an embryo because an embryo is not a person. It is not a thinking, living, person with wants, desires and values.

Insert "comatose person" in the place of "embryo," and tell me if you still hold to this statement.

And to sacrifice the needs and values of the living to the non-living is immoral.

I agree. I also find it immoral to sacrifice the life of the defenseless individual in utero to the needs and values of the individual ex utero.

...to deny research that could hold the cure to these diseases is to condemn billions of people to premature death and immense suffering.

Considering that there are only about six billion people living right now, "billions" seems like a rather extreme estimate.

I hold the Catholic view on this simply as anti-life.

And I respectfully disagree with you.

Post 2

Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 9:20am

Gottfried wrote:

How is size relevant? "Lump of cells" seems to used pejoratively. You and I are also essentially lumps of cells, just larger ones. What do you mean by "scientific reason"? Is there a scientific reason to characterize the object flat-piece-of-wood-supported-by-four-legs as a table?

You and I do not fit on the edge of a pin needle. You and I have a brain with a consciousness, Embryonic stem cells do not. You are resorting to an equivocation here by asserting all lump of cells are the same.

Yes, its brain has yet to develop fully, but it nevertheless is developing. An embryo in a few years time will enjoy the full experience of consciousness.

Of course, but it has yet to become a brain with a consciousness.

Similarly, a person hospitalized in a comatic state may lack consciousness for a few years before regaining it.
The only difference between a comatose person who regains consciousness and an embryo who gains it for the first time is that the former loses consciousness and enters a state of hiatus, while the latter develops into a conscious state. Both experience an interval of unconsciousness. Both would die if not preserved, nurtured, and fed, regardless of whether they find themselves in a womb or a hospital bed.

There can be no such thing as interval of consciousness for an embryo if it doesn't start with one. For something to have an interval it must come into existence first. Interval of consciousness doesn't make sense in this regard since a brain is required for a consciousness, and a person in a temporary coma still has a brain with a consciousness. He doesn't lose his brain during the coma. Again you are equivocating terms here. A brain with a consciousness has a different meaning that someone who is in a temporary coma or in a state of subconscious. In fact we may consider an individual who is brain dead or in a permanent coma as no longer alive. Also consider an individual in coma does not have all the rights of a fully conscious person. Just like a baby does not have the right to refuse medicine administered to it, nor does a comatose person have the right to enter contracts or vote.

The vast difference between an acorn and an embryo is highlighted by the vast difference between a tree and a mature person.

LOL, Gottfried that's funny! It's an analogy. They are the same conceptually with regard to the distinction between 'actual' and 'potential'.

There is good reason to classify an embryo as a per se individual.

No I don't think so. And it's certainly arbitrary for you to assert this without giving a good reason.

It can't be murder to destroy an embryo because an embryo is not a person. It is not a thinking, living, person with wants, desires and values.
Insert "comatose person" in the place of "embryo," and tell me if you still hold to this statement.

If it is a temporary coma, the individual still has a brain and still has a consciousness. Being in a coma is not the only criteria for denying something rights. We do after all sleep every night. We are in a state of subconsciousness but still retain a brain and a consciousness.

I agree. I also find it immoral to sacrifice the life of the defenseless individual in utero to the needs and values of the individual ex utero.

And since I don't regard something that fits on a pin of a needle or is in utero as an individual this statement starts with a false premise and thus your conclusion is false.

...to deny research that could hold the cure to these diseases is to condemn billions of people to premature death and immense suffering.
Considering that there are only about six billion people living right now, "billions" seems like a rather extreme estimate.

Except it isn't at all. There are billions of people living right now but diseases like cancer and Parkinsons have existed over generations. As new people are born and others die, these diseases continue to kill more people. We will not be the only generation to inhabit this planet. Billions is the appropriate description.

I hold the Catholic view on this simply as anti-life.

And I respectfully disagree with you.

That's your prerrogative, but not my problem.

(Edited by John Armaos on 9/02, 9:21am)

Post 3

Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 3:10pm

I feel no need to respond to the above post. Any third party will readily see that John Armaos made no new rebuttals of any consequence. Statements like this:

In fact we may consider an individual who is brain dead or in a permanent coma as no longer alive.

are utterly ridiculous and would imply that Mr. Armaos would have no problem with plunging a dagger into the belly of any comatose person.

I'm done here unless I see meaningful responses.

Post 4

Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 3:17pm

Please, no-one make any meaningful responses!!!!!!

Post 5

Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 4:21pm

Ethan, would you care to make a meaningful response if my post had no meaning? I thought I made my position clear that an individual to be called one must have a brain with a consciousness. If there's anything more that needs to be expounded I'd like to hear it.

Post 6

Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 4:41pm

Gottfried wrote:

I feel no need to respond to the above post. Any third party will readily see that John Armaos made no new rebuttals of any consequence. Statements like this:

In fact we may consider an individual who is brain dead or in a permanent coma as no longer alive.
are utterly ridiculous and would imply that Mr. Armaos would have no problem with plunging a dagger into the belly of any comatose person.

I'm done here unless I see meaningful responses.

Glad to see another satisfied customer! :)

But seriously, should I take your post and chop it up into one sentence phrases some more and just arbitrarily assert an embryo is a person with the same rights to life that you and I have like you have done so well? Then arrogantly declare the discussion is over because I offered no meaningful response? Pot calling the Kettle black?

Perhaps you can tell me then how you define an individual if you don't agree it requires a brain with a consciousness? Would anything that has the potential to be a human being be called an individual? What about sperm? Are those individuals? You would equate something that is microscope to a living breathing person like you or I? Does it require any more meaning than that? Do you regard your life in such a lowly and pathetic light to think it is the same as microscopic cells? Do you really? Then I am truly sorry for you.

I wasn't aware god commanded you to believe microscopic cells are an individual with values, thoughts, wants, desires. That those who suffer today, who are living today, our friends and family, I'm sure people you know who are suffering from some terrible disease, their lives are not worth some microscopic cells that fit on the edge of a needle? Are you Catholics really that cold-hearted? Doesn't sound like a very Jesus Christ thing to me. I also forget that verse in the Bible that said god commands us thou shalt consider embryonic stem cells an individual. I'm sure I have offended your Catholic sensibilities but quite frankly I don't give a damn about Catholic sensibilities. I don't want to see people suffer and if there is a potential to cure that suffering by experimenting with embryonic stem cells, then I suggest the Catholics and any other Religionists that is against that stay out of the scientist's ways and let the rest of us continue living and loving life.

Post 7

Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 5:42pm

John,

Leiniz said "I'm done here unless I see meaningful responses."

That is why I said don't respond :-)

Ethan

Post 8

Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 11:23pm

Ah! Ok I get it. Sorry Ethan I'm little slow today. :)

Post 9

Sunday, September 3, 2006 - 9:37am

Although wrong and misguided, your responses are meaningful enough to warrant response.

Please, no-one make any meaningful responses!!!!!!

Har har.

I thought I made my position clear that an individual to be called one must have a brain with a consciousness. If there's anything more that needs to be expounded I'd like to hear it.

Your position is clear. But I disagree with your position. Very simple.

But seriously, should I take your post and chop it up into one sentence phrases some more and just arbitrarily assert an embryo is a person with the same rights to life that you and I have like you have done so well?

My assertion was anything but arbitrary. The reason I took your statement- "In fact we may consider an individual who is brain dead or in a permanent coma as no longer alive"- out of context was just to underline the absurdity to which your position inevitably leads. Your position- that only a "brain with a consciousness" is an individual- has the consequence that certain comatose persons be considered dead while in such a state. Such a position would also entail that, in order to conserve resources, one would be justified in disconnnecting all comatic persons from life support immediately, because, after all, they're already dead. These are the rational consequences of your position. The absurdity found in the practical application of your position reveals the absurdity of the position itself.

Also consider an individual in coma does not have all the rights of a fully conscious person. Just like a baby does not have the right to refuse medicine administered to it, nor does a comatose person have the right to enter contracts or vote.

Yes, I concede that both unborn and comatose persons do not have the same rights as conscious individuals. But, note well, they both share a fundamental right to life.

LOL, Gottfried that's funny! It's an analogy.

And a very bad one, at that.

They are the same conceptually with regard to the distinction between 'actual' and 'potential'.

The analogy is a bad one because the development of an acorn to a tree does not involve the eventual advent of consciousness. The development of an embryo to a mature person does.

If it is a temporary coma, the individual still has a brain and still has a consciousness. Being in a coma is not the only criteria for denying something rights. We do after all sleep every night. We are in a state of subconsciousness but still retain a brain and a consciousness.

The comatic individual has a brain, but the brain is in a "profound state of unconsciousness," as wikipedia.org puts it. Sleeping is nothing at all like a temporary coma. Have you ever been drugged during an operation? You don't just go to sleep. You essentially black out.

And since I don't regard something that fits on a pin of a needle or is in utero as an individual this statement starts with a false premise and thus your conclusion is false.

Let me get this straight: my statement is false because you don't agree with it? You either need to learn the basics of logical argumentation or practice proper word choice.

Perhaps you can tell me then how you define an individual if you don't agree it requires a brain with a consciousness?

An individual is created at the moment of conception.

Would anything that has the potential to be a human being be called an individual?

No. A sperm is not an individual because it cannot develop into a mature person unless it penetrates an ovum. Only a fertilized egg can sui generis develop into a mature person.

You would equate something that is microscope to a living breathing person like you or I? Does it require any more meaning than that? Do you regard your life in such a lowly and pathetic light to think it is the same as microscopic cells? Do you really? Then I am truly sorry for you.

Microscopic cells only seem so small relative to us. Do you realize that you and I would seem even smaller than microscopic cells if viewed within the universe as a whole? Even from the point of view of our solar system we are insignificant and infinitesimal specks.

I wasn't aware god commanded you to believe microscopic cells are an individual with values, thoughts, wants, desires.

I haven't appealed to the commands of God at all in my argument.

I'm sure I have offended your Catholic sensibilities...

You've mainly offended my rational ones.

I don't want to see people suffer...

Who does? (Aside from the token sadist.)

...if there is a potential to cure that suffering by experimenting with embryonic stem cells

There are a lot of ways to cure suffering. I think we should do everything we can within ethical boundaries to alleviate suffering. That's why I feel compelled to reject those ways which require the killing of innocent individuals.

Post 10

Sunday, September 3, 2006 - 9:05pm

Ah, Herr Leibniz, how good of you to travel to the 21st Century. Perhaps, due to your presence in this advanced age, you will consider updating your ideas as well. We don't burn witches or heretics at the stake any more. We simply flame them on the internet. So things are a little more civil now.

But as to your claim that a zygote is a rights-bearing person, I must take grave exception. You equate this tiny piece of protoplasm with a mature human being who happens to be comatose and ask why, if we're going to deny rights to the zygote, we don't deny them to the comatose, since they are just as lacking in consciousness as the zygote.

Permit me to answer you thus: Just as a person's will must be respected when he dies, so a comatose person's will must be respected when he loses consciousness. If it is clear that he would have wanted to be sustained in the event that there was some hope of reviving him, then respect for his property rights (i.e., his body and his life) requires that his will be respected by whoever is designated to handle his affairs - usually his spouse or his children. His rights deserve to be respected in a coma, because the exercise of his will while he is conscious extends to those conditions in which he lacks consciousness.

For example, one is not at liberty to rob or kill someone who is sleeping, because the person has property rights over the disposition of his property, including his body, and has clearly chosen not to have his property stolen or his body physically harmed while he is asleep.

A zygote, on the other hand, has yet to acquire the capacity to exercise choice; it has yet to acquire personhood or any claim to a rights-bearing status. So its situation is not analogous to an initially conscious rights-bearing human who becomes comatose or otherwise incapacitated. The zygote has no rights, because it has yet to fulfill the conditions for acquiring them.

To argue that a zygote has a right to life, because he has the potential to become a person is like arguing that a toddler has a right to drive, because he has the potential to get a license when he turns sixteen. A potentiality is not an actuality.

- Sir William Scott Duibhir
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 9/03, 9:08pm)

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 9/04, 12:14am)

Post 11

Monday, September 4, 2006 - 10:07am

Although we've been discussing stem cells, the arguments raised in the abortion debate are very similar. For me it's simple. As an egoist who practices rational selfishness, I believe that each individual is an end in himself who has a right to his own life. There is no such thing as a right to someone else life, or the product of their life's efforts (their property). Therfore, neither an embryo, zygote, nor fetus has a right to be carried to term against the will of the individual they are implanted in.

Post 12

Monday, September 4, 2006 - 9:51pm

Although we've been discussing stem cells, the arguments raised in the abortion debate are very similar. For me it's simple. As an egoist who practices rational selfishness, I believe that each individual is an end in himself who has a right to his own life. There is no such thing as a right to someone else life, or the product of their life's efforts (their property). Therfore, neither an embryo, zygote, nor fetus has a right to be carried to term against the will of the individual they are implanted in.

Jonathan, how would you answer the following rejoinder to your argument:

If a fetus has no right to be carried to term, then on what grounds does a baby have a right to be supported by his parents until he can be independent and self-supporting? After all, a baby is just as dependent on his parents for survival as a fetus is dependent on the mother for survival. If the parents' act of killing or abandoning of their baby is a violation of his right to their support, then why isn't the mother's act of killing her fetus a violation of his right to her support. If the fetus has no right to be sustained by the mother, then why does a baby have a right to be sustained by the parents?

- Bill

Post 13

Monday, September 4, 2006 - 10:59pm

Oh Bill - how sophomoric..... that's been covered more than once in this forum....
(Edited by robert malcom on 9/04, 11:00pm)

Post 14

Tuesday, September 5, 2006 - 4:46am

Bill, it doesn't. Do you disagree?

Post 15

Tuesday, September 5, 2006 - 8:59am

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 9/05, 9:09am)

Post 16

Tuesday, September 5, 2006 - 9:04am

Robert, you wrote:

Oh Bill - how sophomoric..... that's been covered more than once in this forum....

Now that's what I like -- a nice argument from intimidation!

Okay, I'll bite. Where has it been covered? Could you provide a link?

Jonathan, in response to my question, "If the fetus has no right to be sustained by the mother, then why does a baby have a right to be sustained by the parents?", you replied:

Bill, it doesn't. Do you disagree?

Yes, and so does Objectivism. According to Nathaniel Branden, writing in the December 1962 issue of The Objectivist Newsletter,

A child is the responsibility of the parents, because (a) they brought him into the existence, and (b) a child, by nature, cannot survive independently. (The fact that the parents might have desired the child, in a given case, is irrelevant in this context; he is nevertheless the consequence of their chosen actions -- a consequence that, as a possibility, was foreseeable.)

The essence of parental responsibility is: to equip the child for independent survival as an adult. This means, to provide for the child's physical and mental development and well-being: to feed, clothe and protect him; to raise him in a stable, intelligible, rational home environment, to equip him intellectually, training him to live as a rational being; to educate him to earn his livelihood (teaching him to hunt, for instance, in a primitive society; sending him to college, perhaps, in an advanced civilization).

When the child reaches the age of legal maturity and/or when he has been educated for a career, parental obligation ends. Thereafter, parents may still want to help their child, but he is no longer their responsibility.

(Intellectual Ammunition Department: "What are the respective obligations of parents to children, and children to parents?")

Or, in Rand's words:

"All human rights depend upon man's nature as a rational being; therefore, a child must wait until he has developed his mind and acquired enough knowledge to be capable of the full independent exercise of his rights. While he's a child, his parents must support him. This is a fact of nature. Proclaiming some kind of children's rights won't make such "rights" real. Rights are a concept based on reality; therefore, a parent doesn't have the right to starve his child, neglect him, injure him physically, or kill him. The government must protect the child, as it would any other citizen. But the child can't claim for himself the rights of an adult, because he is not competent to exercise them. He must depend on his parents. If he doesn't like them, he should leave home as early as he can earn his living by legal means.

(In answer to a question following a lecture at the Ford Hall Forum, Boston in 1974: "How do the rights of children differ from those of adults, particularly given a child's need for parental support?" Quoted in Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of her Q&A by Robert Mayhew, pp. 3, 4)

So, in light of the above, let me restate my question, which is not directed specifically to you: If, according to Objectivism, a baby has the right to be sustained by the parents, then why, according to that self-same philosophy, doesn't a fetus have the right to be sustained by the mother?

- Bill

Post 17

Tuesday, September 5, 2006 - 9:15am

Bill, I believe there was a similar thread on the parenting forum, but I could be wrong.

If, according to Objectivism, a baby has the right to be sustained by the parents, then why, according to that self-same philosophy, doesn't a fetus have the right to be sustained by the mother?

I don't know Bill, I can't think of a reason, which is why I reject Branden's and Rand's assertions here.

A child is the responsibility of the parents, because (a) they brought him into the existence,

So is a fetus...

and (b) a child, by nature, cannot survive independently

Neither can a fetus...

(The fact that the parents might have desired the child, in a given case, is irrelevant in this context; he is nevertheless the consequence of their chosen actions -- a consequence that, as a possibility, was foreseeable.)

You mean like a fetus?

While he's a child, his parents must support him. This is a fact of nature.

No the fact the parents overwhelmingly do support their children is a fact of nature, but I see no "facts" that dictate they must. What do you think?

Post 18

Tuesday, September 5, 2006 - 12:42pm

Jonathan,

Since rights depend on one's nature as a rational being, the question is, at what point in his development does a person acquire the capacity for reason? Obviously, it is sometime after birth, but there is no clear dividing line between the pre-rational and the rational that is the same for every person. Some people develop the capacity to reason at an earlier age than others. Still, we need some readily discernible standard -- some clear line of demarcation -- for the recognition of a person's rights. My suggestion is to draw the line at birth, because doing so provides a clear boundary that everyone can recognize and one which, moreover, has a wide margin for error.

To be sure, birth is itself somewhat arbitrary, but it does allow the mother the opportunity to terminate her pregnancy, if it becomes too burdensome or debilitating. This birthright would require that once a person is born, he not be harmed, but it would not require that he be supported by the parents, as they can always give him up for adoption. No such opportunity is available for the child in utero. The mother is forced to carry the child to term, unless she has an abortion.

However, once the parents choose to raise the child, either through bringing him into the world or through adopting him from the original parents, they assume the responsibility of caring for him, and can be guilty of violating his rights if they don't do it properly. The reason is that once they become responsible for the child's welfare, they cannot allow him to make his own decisions. They must decide what is best for him, in which case, they become accountable for those decisions. If they neglect to take proper care of him, then they are effectively harming the child and are thereby violating his rights. Since he is not living independently but is under their care and control, they are responsible for seeing that his needs are met until he can support himself.

But these obligations must ultimately be chosen by the parents. If the mother chooses not to accept them, then she can terminate her pregnancy before giving birth. If she chooses to bring the child into the world, then she is choosing the responsibility of raising him or of finding someone who will.

- Bill

Post 19

Tuesday, September 5, 2006 - 2:08pm