args

DDO Tournament Debate: Zygotes Should be Recognized as Persons

Note | Well this is certainly challenging. Glad to be here, hope this is going to be entertaining. I see two ways to approach the problem: Should Zygotes be recognized as Persons? a SCIENTIFIC APPROACH (1) that ask whether a Zygote is a philosophically person based on indicators provided by science and a PRACTICAL APPROACH (2) challenging whether it should be considered as a person therefore evolving around the question, if there would be any good in considering a Zygote as a person. I want to show that there are good reasons to believe, that a Zygote is not person and that it would not be beneficial for our society as well. 1 | Scientific Approach A Zygote, is a fertilized egg cell. It “represents the first stage in the development of a genetically unique organism” [1]. It subdivides via mitosis into blastomeres which are later the base for everything that is needed for a functioning (human) offspring. 1.1 | Development stage We might feel uncomfortable thinking about ourselves that way. We often have troubles imagining ourselves as infants, because the infant we are thinking about seems to have nothing in common with the person we are today. The difference between a zygote and an infant is even more severe. The basic zygote is only one cell. It doesn’t have a nerve system, blood circuit or self-awareness. It’s scientifically impossible for a zygote to feel pain. It’s a delicate unit (Even the ideal group of women between 20 and 34 showed a spontaneous abortion rate of 7% [3]) that all living things (apart from bacteria) went through: Trees, Flies, Apes – they all were one fertilized cell at the beginning of their existence and all these examples overcome in their adult form a zygote in complexity and awareness. Regarding a zygote as person would mean to put it on one level with all born humans and above everything else. How can we consider it as responsible ethics (and not egoism) to think that one simple fertilized human cell is worth more than a fully grown complex Chimpanzee? 1.2 | Individuality A Zygote holds a unique DNA. Unique, in a relatively small range because two people’s DNA is mostly identical as there is only about 0,1% difference between the genes two random people [2]. With a chimpanzee, that is genetically 1,6% [2] away from the average human DNA, the human zygote has an 1,6% better claim on personhood than an chimpanzee zygote. Because that is the only thing that keeps them apart. There visual and theoretical structure is exactly the same. And a very crucial problem: A zygote might split. Due to our current definition, a person only needs certain rights to make it one. But considering a zygote as an individual makes a zygote that splits into two separately developing cells (Twins) a difficult thing: If identical Twins are two different people, what was their zygote before it split? 1.2 | Potential A right is usually granted on the current situation, not on potential situation. A doctor in training is no fully licensed doctor yet and we have good reasons to not allow them to treat patience, even on the very real potential that they might be doctors soon. Potential is speculation. There is no assurance that a zygote will be born as human infant and granting a right on what might be, is logically not coherent. Not all humans will be born and live up to something we might consider as “greater good”. Some zygotes will later become mass murderers, suicidal or politicians. Some will not naturally not survive the next week of pregnancy. If we’d grant a right based on what might be, we’d have to grant it on all that might be. And that we cannot foresee. A Zygote can be made in labs. Fertilizing an egg outside a woman’s body is daily life for many reproduction scientists. But a Zygote in a Peter’s pence is never going to become a human there. How can we built on a potential that is not even likely. If potential and future is the key, then have these cells no claim on personhood, because they have no potential. If a man fertilizes an egg cell in a Peter’s pence nobody can honestly think that any woman should be forced to carry that zygote into a child. And if that right cannot be granted than the Zygote has no right at all and cannot be a person conclusively. 2 | Practical Approach The Philosophical/ Scientific approach showed many points where only ones personal ethics can tell, what kind of interpretation seems to be the better one for ourselves. Still, Personhood is a concept, to indicate how we should treat and see a living subject. Whether we regard a Zygote as person or not does not change the thing itself. A Zygote is what it is and what we call it does not matter for it. Important is, what we do with those, we regard as a person. Legally we ensure their survival. That’s the most basic right any person gets: the right to live. 2.1 | Paradox To a certain extend can we assume that an egg cell is part of the woman’s body and she has any right do make decisions about her egg cells. A woman’s body is built from about 3.72 × 10^13 cells [4]. One cell is absurdly close to “nothing” compared to that. Yet that one fertilised cell would gain the same right that the other 372 Trillion together. This is primarily paradox, because a woman cannot hold be two people at the same time. Especially because the claim to live that both simultaneously have, might be correlating. We might want to morally ensure that a zygote/foetus/embryo survives, but regarding these as a person would create a definition paradox. Especially for a Zygote goes that it and the Woman carrying it cannot be separated without having one or both “parties” to die. Giving them the correlating rights by giving them the same status, especially as this status is a mere human-made concept, is an unnecessarily self-made mess, which can be best avoided by not regarding a zygote a person. 2.2 | Evaluation and Abortion The term “person” is not practical. It takes the woman nearly any claim on her own body and automatically outlaws abortion for every situation there is. The line between a cell that is not at all and the adult who is certainly a person is not there. But that does not mean that they are the same. Development and Progress always transfere something from one form into another. That a transformation is fluent is no sufficient reason to say it is not there. Just because I cannot say, when I started thinking, does not mean I have always thought nor that I have not been thinking before I can remember thinking. And it also does not mean that I always will think. Pregnancy is philosophically a mess. And the term "person" is making it worse. One might regard a zygote a “person” out of one’s personal religious or ethical believes, but as these believes are not shared by anyone is the real question whether we SHOULD regard it as a person. And considering the down sides of forcing every woman with a fertilized egg inside her to give up half or full claim on her own personhood is a question for evaluation. Abortion has its benefits for society and giving them up, just to apply a man-made term to something that does not care about it, might be over sensible. The current way to theoretically divide a pregnancy in three different stages (zygote, embryo, foetus) that all have different laws protecting or not protecting it makes logically and rationally sense. A zygote shouldn’t be considered a person if that brings us into a position where we have morally and legally hamstrung us all. Sources | [1] The Encyclopaedia Britannica: Zygote http://www.britannica.com... [2] Human Origins: Genetics http://humanorigins.si.edu... [3] Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand: Spontaneous Abortion Rate http://europepmc.org... [4] Research Paper: An estimation of the number of cells in the human body http://informahealthcare.com...