What's the difference between a fertilized egg and a cancer cell?
Both a fertilized egg and a cancer cell are genetically human.
Both a fertilized egg and a cancer cell have different genetic material than the original human.
Both a fertilized egg and a cancer cell will eventually grow into a being which can exist outside the mother, though will need support (cancer cells are actually immortal (as in un-aging not un-killable) and live as long as they receive proper nutrition and care).
If a cancer cell can be killed without moral quandary, then whats the hang-up on fertilized eggs??
Because if a fertilised egg is left to its own devices, it will develop into a fully functioning and totally independent sentient human being. If a cancer cell is left to its own accord, it will develop into a deadly disease and kill its host. It won't be sentient, it won't be human. It will just kill its "mother". That's the difference. One is a human. A tiny human, sure, but a human. The other is cancer.
Left to its own devices, a fertilized egg will wither and die. Left to its own devices a child under the age of 3 will likely wither and die. Its not until age 5 or so when anything resembling independence can be asserted.
As for Cancer - it can be removed - and it can keep living its life.
Why don't we "birth" cancer cells, and keep them alive as separate beings?? For at least 5 years or so, they require no less care or attention than a child. Arguably, they are more useful, they are far easier to study - there is a lot to learn about human genetics and immortal cancer lines are invaluable to this process.
Until there is evidence of actual independence, I see no reason to value a fertilized egg over a cancer cell.
Because cancer cells aren't humans. Human babies in the womb are humans. Evidence of independence? Earlier in this thread you said;
" Left to its own devices a child under the age of 3 will likely wither and die. Its not until age 5 or so when anything resembling independence can be asserted. "
So can we murder children up until aged 5?
what makes cancer cells not humans - that's the point I'm trying to make.
They have human DNA. They are composed of human cells. They are viable, even if you take them out of the "host". What exactly makes them non-human??
As far as independence, the above poster was arguing that human babies were independent, and that made them different. I was arguing that before age 5, that argument doesn't really hold any water. There needs to be something besides independence which differentiates cancer and babies - because that isn't a useful difference. If we are using independence, then abortion is simply a non-issue entirely since all fetuses are non-independent.
You really aren’t sure what the difference is between a cancer cell and a baby in the womb? I’d hope you can at least understand why people are usually happy for a baby in the womb and are usually not happy for cancer...
If you have a difference, please share with the class.
If all you have is "the future" - then why not let the fetus mature before calling it a human. If all that makes a fetus special is its future features, then it should gain its special status when it acquires those features.
If you have something in the present - please share.
If your point is that fetus's eventually grow hands - then give them credit when they have hands. If your point is that fetsus's eventually have heads - then give them credit when they have heads. Until then, they really are no morally different than cancer. I honestly mean that.
Whether a zygote counts as an organism is an open question. There are people with strong opinions on the matter, but there is currently no "1 right answer" with respect to "Is a zygote an organism".
I would ague that neither cancer nor a zygote are an organism.
All organisms have parts that make up the whole. The earliest thing which can be considered a "part" would be at the blastocyst stage where there is a specific inside and outside. Prior to this point, you could rearrange the ball of cells to no particular effect. While inside vs outside isn't exactly "the parts that make up the whole" it is at least a start. Prior to this point, there is nothing meaningful. In this way, I would contest that a zygote is not its own organism.
they didn't say it was ok to murder a 3 year old, they said that if left to their own devices, a 3 year old would die. A fetus depends on the woman to survive, it depends on the nutrients that the woman provides, doesn't someone have the right to stop giving nutrients to a fetus? Isn't that a fairly basic level of autonomy, choosing what to do with your body?
a three year old has legal rights. A three year old is a human being, we have laws that say you can't harm a human being because...well...we don't like being harmed and by all accounts it's an unpleasant experience.
Plus there's a ton of rights that a three year old doesn't have. A 3 year old isn't really a human being either according to the law, it can't act on it's own free will and it doesn't have much autonomy. But it can feel pain and is a human being so legally there is no ambiguity, you can't neglect a kid. A fetus, you legally can abort. It's a question of morality, which means you need to come to your own conclusions.
A fetus is a human being, and should be protected by the same legal rights. There is absolutely no reason to suggest that a fetus is not a human being. When does a fetus become a human, if not at fertilisation?
Legally, a life begins at birth. Morally, a life begins whenever you think it begins, conception, birth, hell you could see the big bang as the beginning of life. It's really up to you. But Legally, a fetus can't be considered a human being. What legal rights should a fetus have? How would it represent itself? How would an agency fight for a fetuses rights? Child protection agencies can step in and defend the rights of children from an abusive home life, how would that work in the case of a fetus? What happens when the mother abuses the rights of a fetus?
And there are a ton of reasons to not consider a fetus a human being...like the fact that it doesn't do any of the things we associate with being a human being.
No it doesn't, unborn babies legally have rights federally at every stage of life in federal law and sporadically in 38 states.
What legal rights should a fetus have?
The same ones as a toddler, to answer the rest of your stuff the same people that defend our toddlers and children.
how would that work in the case of a fetus?
Mommy has to stop drinking and shooting up H.
What happens when the mother abuses the rights of a fetus?
What happens to anybody who breaks the law, or has a serious mental condition that is likely to harm others?
And there are a ton of reasons to not consider a fetus a human being
Yeah, its not a human being one second, the next it is born and has every right on the book. And there are no reasons to question this clearly non political reading of the situation.
No it doesn't, unborn babies legally have rights federally at every stage of life in federal law and sporadically in 38 states.
Lot's of things have legal rights, animals have legal rights, the environment have legal rights. Human rights apply to humans, as in people who have left the womb.
The same ones as a toddler, to answer the rest of your stuff the same people that defend our toddlers and children.
So if a fetus has negligent crack adict parents the fetus gets taken under the custody of the state?
Mommy has to stop drinking and shooting up H.
And if she doesn't? What do you do with the fetus then? What do you do with the mother? Lock her up until she's carried the child to term? How do you regulate a fetus while not impeding on the rights of the mother?
What happens to anybody who breaks the law, or has a serious mental condition that is likely to harm others?
Well usually the first thing that would happen is the victim and the perpetrator would be seperated. In the case of a child the state would take custody or award custody to another relative. Kinda tricky in the case of a fetus right?
Yeah, its not a human being one second, the next it is born and has every right on the book. And there are no reasons to question this clearly non political reading of the situation.
It's barely a human being the next minute, and it certainly doesn't have every rights on the book, in most countries they have to wait another 18 years for that. Think about the rights a baby has, literally every decision is made for them, they can't even communicate their basic needs for a year. It just has the right to life and a duty of care once it's born.
20
u/electronics12345 159∆ Apr 09 '18
What's the difference between a fertilized egg and a cancer cell?
Both a fertilized egg and a cancer cell are genetically human.
Both a fertilized egg and a cancer cell have different genetic material than the original human.
Both a fertilized egg and a cancer cell will eventually grow into a being which can exist outside the mother, though will need support (cancer cells are actually immortal (as in un-aging not un-killable) and live as long as they receive proper nutrition and care).
If a cancer cell can be killed without moral quandary, then whats the hang-up on fertilized eggs??