Is A Fertilized Human Egg A Person?

Is a fertilized human egg a person?

The Jedi believe :

Br. John wrote: Is a fertilized human egg a person?

No, a fertilised human egg is not a "person". Is it a human being ? That, yes it is.

Whether it is a "person" is not what gives it value, and it hasn't been such a long time ago that the Temple last argued about what "inherent worth" means. There is no reason to re-hash that. All Life has value, dignity and merits our Respect and our Love.

Then again, we would best not get too idealistic about that. It sounds pretty flowery at first, but ahimsa - the practice of "do no harm" - is not quite as soft and cuddly as it may seem. Just because we believe in the inherent worth of all Life, does not signify that we disdain Death (as a part of Life, it is also implied in that worth), and as long as that Life (which is not ALL Life) is given the Love and Respect of a merciful and dignified end, it is within the scope of our belief in the inherent worth of Life, and in the prevention of suffering, to give that Life a swift, painless and dignified end.

Human beings die of all sorts of things. Catastrophes, accidents, violence (on small or large scale), diseases, famine and even predators have been killing us since always. And our Deaths are very rarely our choice ... sometimes, yes, but it is relatively pretty rare. Whether we die of a disease or something or someone does us in, Death is still the eventual term of our Lives.

We can debate moral philosophy for another few millennia on the issue of what is just and probably not come up with anything universal. But to answer the question : no, a fertilised human egg is not yet a person. A person is an identity vis-à-vis to other people. None of us, I'll bet, personally know any fertilised eggs. If we ever meet one, it is already dying ...

Personally - for me - my simple answer is - no - there is no "person" there.

But wait, there's more... Oh blastula, not more!

As Frank Herbert wrote in Dune, “A beginning is the time for taking the most delicate care that the balances are correct. ”

The fertilized egg exists at the beginning of a continuum of life, but there are so many challenges for it to overcome and the biological cards are stacked against it...

When the appendix, gall bladder or a kidney are removed, do those cells constitute a person?

Part of a person yes.

To be slightly controversial I'll answer it is mother. The egg is part of her, and the fertilization is just a reaction to an introduced agency. The mother's egg grows into a human as a result of the cascade of effects within the mother, to the point it is expelled, where as a society we accept it as a new person.
:S :laugh:

From this view I'd say reproduction is not creation, but gestation, a gestalt of the parents created by the mother.... not to be confused with indigestion.

Tough topic!!!!

No, a fertilised human egg is not a "person". Is it a human being ? That, yes it is.

Whether it is a "person" is not what gives it value, and it hasn't been such a long time ago that the Temple last argued about what "inherent worth" means. There is no reason to re-hash that. All Life has value, dignity and merits our Respect and our Love.

Can something that's not a person can be considered a human being?

All life includes deadly bacteria. Does tuberculosis have value, dignity and merit our respect and our love?

Arkayik wrote: When the appendix, gall bladder or a kidney are removed, do those cells constitute a person?

I would say not. They have no potential to become humans (unless modified by clone engineering). Whereas a fertilised human egg has the potential to become a unique person. I see no comparison between the two.

Not in itself, no.

I believe we have a person when the pregnancy becomes viable; when/if they reach the developmental stage where they could live outside of the mother and survive. When exactly that is is debatable and seems to vary from case to case (given the lousy way pregnancies are dated - from the first missed period - this is hardly surprising). Medical wisdom suggests the following:

According to studies between 2003 and 2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive.

The earliest recorded birth to survive was 21 weeks 5 days: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterm_birth#Notable_preterm_births

That's not to suggest there is no value in a pre-21-week foetus, embryo or blastocyst. They're just not yet distinct "people" as such, to me.

Br. John wrote: Can something that's not a person can be considered a human being?

All life includes deadly bacteria. Does tuberculosis have value, dignity and merit our respect and our love?

Yes, something that is not a person can indeed be considered a human being. It is a living being which is of the of the human species, regardless of the state of development. It is a fertilised human egg. Like the seed of a peach is not a peach tree, but if it is not yet a peach tree, we can't put a birdhouse in it or have to mow around it, but it is still peach ... it will not produce an apple tree or broccoli or kittens ...

With regard to the strains of mycobacteria which (I did not say who) cause tuberculosis -- yes, they probably do have value, some dignity and merit our respect and love. We do not have to like being infected with them ... We wouldn't like being mamed by a tiger or a bear either, but we wouldn't hate the entire species. The bacteria which cause tuberculosis cause a really horrible disease in us, but they do fit into the biosphere in some supportive capacity or the biosphere would have gotten rid of it a long time before we ever knew what it was.

We can have respect and love for what does not please us. We just don't like that idea that something weakens and kills us ... but then we will gladly talk about the beauty of Nature. We pretty conveniently dismiss that about Nature which we consider gruesome.

That said, I don't want tuberculosis or to be mauled by a bear either, and I wouldn't find either the bacteria nor the bear very lovable if they were in my room with me (because I'm just like everyone else and will probably resist the idea of my own demise until I'm no longer there to demise), but I do consider it pretty marvellous to have been born into a World where Life has come about - hundreds of millions of species, and about 10 000 more discovered every year - which, in our local galactic neighbourhood, is pretty rare. That has to include very tiny things that will take up residence in me and do what we've been doing to our own environment as well as very large things that will have me for lunch ...

I also consider myself pretty fortunate to be living in this era where we have learnt a little about biology and medicine and can treat the 'colonised' condition and hopefully get the guests out ... Not so long ago, that wasn't the case : one of my mother's aunts and a cousin died of tuberculosis.

Anyway ... I'm just rambling. I found the opening questions provocative.

It,s alive so it is life and that life will grow in to a person with a sole and hart

I'd say no a fertilized human egg isn't a person.