Wednesday, 26th March 2008
The brain makes a person
Ivan Padovani (March 19) points out that a foetus is both living and human, and equates this with being "a living human being". He then asserts that no-one anywhere challenges this. When was Dr Padovani elected spokesman for all people on the planet?
Anything containing living human cells fits the characteristics given, as in a human heart, human liver, human blood. They are living, and they are human yet they are not living human beings, nor are they persons. Thanks to that little fact we have organ transplants today.
The reason that the result is not Frankenstein's monster is that these, despite being human and alive, are not the person. These organs, removed from one body, are kept alive until they can be transplanted into another body.
A foetus consists of living human cells, but as I showed above, that is not enough to make a person. The heart can be beating but a beating heart is just a pumping organ. A person's heart can be kept beating after the brain has died, and you can replace the heart, and many other organs, while the person remains the same. Distinct DNA is also not an issue - identical twins have similar DNA but still are distinct individuals. It certainly has nothing to do with the external appearance of a foetus.
It is indeed the brain that makes us humans (as opposed to collections of human cells) and persons. Personhood can only exist with a functioning brain, and ends when that brain permanently ceases its activity. You could transplant just about any organ in the body because what you'd be doing is rearranging the appendages to the brain - the seat of the human person.
Dr Padovani accuses Dr Azzopardi of "sophistry and deceit", but his own letter is hardly a model of honesty. Many people challenge the idea that life begins when at fertilisation. And although a human being is indeed a person, not any collection of human cells is.
Finally, abortion is a right in most countries - Malta is the only EU country where it is banned in all situations. Some might be surprised to learn that abortion is also accepted by many religions and denominations, including many branches of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and other faiths. Perhaps if Dr Padovani were to look a bit further afield, he would realise that this is not a debate of good people versus evil monsters.
This is a debate between people, often sharing the same religious beliefs, morality and values, who disagree on the seemingly simple matter of when exactly life begins.
Think of it this way: to a person who believes life begins at some later stage, then an abortion carried out before that point is not immoral in any way. From the information we have so far, I have to say that the idea that a single fertilised egg is a person sounds quite absurd to me.
RSS
Comments
In that case, I agree with you. However, I disagree that it is an "independent human being." In fact, it is very much dependent, not on a society, which could provide suitable structures in order to sustain it but, exclusively, on another human being - its mother.
Several abortion statisticians have come to the conclusion that, even where no abortion legislation exists, a pregnant woman, who is determined not to go through with her pregnancy, will resort to any possible means to abort , even at the expense of causing herself some grave injury in the process.
As a result, most countries have legalised abortion for compassionate reasons, so that, at least, one of the two would survive.
Having said this, I agree that society should take every possible measure to reduce the necessity of abortion, not through coercion or criminalisation (which, invariably, has been shown to fail miserably and just drive it underground), but through educational and financial support, if necessary.
Martin, since your baby is obviously science and not the "murky worlds of philosophy, religion or politics," I shall make an attempt to reply in your favourite language.
According to you, a zygote is no different from the individual gametes that fused together to form it, since "...all that fertilisation does is to bring two human genome sequences a little bit closer to each other so that some genes can be matched or exchanged...No new matter is created or destroyed in the process of fertilisation."
Indeed, when two molecules of hydrogen react with one of oxygen, one molecule of water is formed. No new matter is created or destroyed in this process either.
I can assure you, Martin, that a zygote is as different from the gametes that went into its make-up as water is from either of the gases, hydrogen and oxygen.
Scientific yet simple enough for every lay-person to understand? I should think so.
Now, since the human embryo is an independent human being (as I've explained in my previous comments), just like you and me, I will never call it different than either any of us. Therefore, since it is no different than any of us, it has the same rights we enjoy (including the mother which as you correctly stated has her own genome with the SAME structure as that of the embryo).
Finally, since both the embryo and the mother have the right to life, abortion is something which cannot be legal in a nation which enforces the "Right to Live" (yes I am saying I do not agree with the rest of Europe in legalising abortion)
I really do feel for the women that are pregnant and have no means to care for the child within their womb and these are women the society needs (and has the duty) to help. Once we begin making exceptions when it comes to rights (and very important rights such as that of life), your rights will also become subject to these exceptions leading to the downfall of the society as a whole.
Regarding Kyle's insistence that human life starts at fertilisation, can i just remark that the full human genome sequence is present in both gametes ell before fertilisation, all that fertilization does is bring two seperate human genome sequences a little bit closer to each other so that some genes can be matched or exchanged. In other words the chromosomes from both gametes simply just come closer together and pair off. So I am baffled why correpespondents are giving such an importance to an event that is simply one of a change of distance, No new matter is created or destroyed in the process of fertilisation. So why the big fuss over a few nanometres? Should a difference of a few nanometres determine whether a human organism should live or die? Isn't that too harsh? Finally the correspondents on this forum seem to be ignoring the fact that human embryos have recently been created from adult human stem cells , skipping the process of fertilisation completely, and therefore throwing Kyle's absurd theory that human life begins at fertilisation to the wind.
According to you, personhood equates with the human genome, although you are also prepared "to applaud Ms Zammit" for her correct assertion that it is a "moral argument and cannot be explained scientifically."
So what is it to be, Kyle? The science of the human genome or the moral argument? You certainly cannot have it both ways!
If you go with the human genome, then you will no doubt be aware that a pregnant woman has one of her own. Thus, both the pregnant woman and the foetus would have an equal right to self-determination. In such a scenario, in the event of a clash, social history amply demonstrates that a pregnant woman will go to great lengths to have it her way, even if this means endangering her own life. So, what you end up with is a deceased foetus and a deceased woman.
As a result, humane societies have come to the conclusion that it would make infinite more sense if, at least, one stayed alive - preferably the one who is already a fully-fletched member of that society.
If, on the other hand, you go for the moral argument, then you will have to respect the fact that there are people, like me, who equate personhood and rights to the human brain (or, more correctly, the mind), just as you equate it with conception. The argument cannot be resolved scientifically, only philosophically, ethically or religiously.
And, all three depend, at least in part, on hypothetical conjecture!
So Kyle, just as you are unable to "find any hard, solid facts" to your religious beliefs, you will be unable to find them in my philosophical and ethical conjecturing.
At the end of the day, it is the pregnant woman who will decide the fate of the foetus within her. Malta's population is, reputedly, almost entirely against abortion. Yet, this doesn't seem to stop the steady flow of abortion-seekers to countries where it has been legal for years.
It would appear that, when necessity demands, even we Maltese are prepared to suspend our religious and traditional beliefs, at least momentarily, for something which we consider a necessity.
Features, such as personal identity, self-awareness, self-determination and individuality have all been touted as being important indicators of the status of personhood.
Although all born human beings are considered to be persons, the status is not restricted to the human genome and it is conceivable that a being who could laugh with us, cry with us and aspire with us, although not sharing our genetic make-up, would be considered a person in its own right, by our society.
As a side-note, Peter Singer, of Princeton University, considers that a fully-grown chimpanzee (an animal that is part of an advanced and sophisticated social structure) is a person, but a human foetus isn't.
Your claim that the brain is just another organ is as absurd as your assertion that an ovum is a human being in its own right, just because it has the potential to become a person, if it is fortunate enough to ever get impregnated!
In fact, it would be possible, conceptually at least, to replace every other part of the body without sacrificing identity.
I'll put it in simpler terms, Martin. If it were, thoeretically, possible for you and me to exchange our brains, so that my body ended up with your brain and your body ended up with mine, which person would you consider yourself to be? I would go with my brain. Wouldn't you?
As for you, Shirley, you are perfectly entitled to your beliefs. My name, however, is Azzopardi, not Cassar, like yours. It would appear you have some difficulty with nomenclature, as you demonstrate when, in your enthusiasm to cast aspersions, you confuse bioethics with eugenics!
I cannot help to point out though that Mr. Azzopardi is once again trying to prove his point subjectively. Personhood is something totally abstract yet you have made yourself person enough to decide who else is a person or not.
When you say that, "Contemporary thought would suggest that the foetus, although having certain moral rights, is unable to enjoy equal moral rights with its mother, certainly not before the hard-wiring of its brain has taken place," you, once again, fail to prove why the brain is necessary for personhood. I can't find any hard, solid facts anywhere (Don't give us hypothetical situations that don't work please. We want facts.) suggesting this.
The hard, solid fact is that at fertilisation there is a new human being (because it has a full human genome) and that is something which has been proved. No goverment, bioethist or any other professional is above others at deciding who is a person or not.
I'd like to applaud Ms. Zammit at saying it loud and clear that "A person is a moral argument and cannot be explained scientifically no matter how important you may feel when you try."
However, during pregnancy itself, the viability of the foetus is entirely dependent on its mother. In this scenario, since the pregnant woman has full moral and legal rights, bioethicists attempt to establish the moral rights of the foetus by using a series of established benchmarks, thereby providing an indication of the foetus' right to life, relative to the mother. Contemporary thought would suggest that the foetus, although having certain moral rights, is unable to enjoy equal moral rights with its mother, certainly not before the hard-wiring of its brain has taken place. Subsequently, in the situation where a clash of rights is taken to exist, the mother's rights would easily override the rights of the foetus and an abortion would become morally justifiable.
Men, leave our wombs and our babies alone. The amount of men trying to get us to legally abort in this country is sickening. The only men I respect are those that respect me as a woman, not a woman that has to have the right to do something wrong. Let women fight for abortion if they want but you men for abortion should stay out of it Women in Malta are mostly pro-life unless you are Daphne or someone like her.
Kyle Pullicino , on the other hand, seems to define human DNA by the quantity of DNA material in a cell. It is quite obvious, to myself anyway, that what distinguishes human DNA is not the quantity of DNA (which can vary greatly between humans) but the quality of DNA, in other words the specific human genome sequence. That is why an ovum should qualify as a human, because it has its own unique human genome pattern , and interacts with the environment just like any other organism. Once again I emphasise that the step of fertilisation is being over-rated in this discussion, though I admit that fertilisation is useful in that it gives the human organism the chance to randomly mutate and therefore adapt to a changing external environment.
This is the reason that even a single-celled embryo is a human being and has all the rights every other human being, such as ourselves, enjoy. This also means that a sex cell is not an individual human being but rather part of (belongs to) the human being that produced it.
A good article on this is found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_cell
Also, if I'm not mistaken, the contraceptive pill and the intra-uterine device are both banned from being imported in Malta due to the fact you mentioned: both are abortive and kill the human being.
Finally, many people seem to be ignoring the fact that the contraceptive pill and the intra-uterine coil can both terminate human life and are probably the most commonly used abortive methods used in Malta at this time, and thats not even including the condom which can also be considered a form of abortion since it destroys at least one potential unique human life every time it is used, though ironically the condom can also save lives by preventing the spread of life-threatening infections.
To Ms. Attard: I can’t believe you’d be so overtly sexist as to suggest that the pro-abortion movement is male propaganda to force a woman into aborting her baby. Unless you have living on another planet, you should be familiar with the pro-abortion rallies where, more often than not, women are at the forefront flashing “Our bodies, Our right [to abort]” posters.
Can you mention Christian denominations that do allow abortion? Very few even allow divorce, let alone abortion. And anyway it is not a matter of religion.
Just because this type of murder is allowed in other countries, EU or otherwise does not make it a right. Nazi Germany allowed the murder of Jews, did that make it a right in any way?
Yet today we have a holocaust that equals & exceeds that of that most terrible holocaust caused by the Nazis.
Maria Attard is right.
You are a man and have no right to tell us women when our child is a person. It is not about personhood at all. It is about a baby that lives in our wombs. How typically male and hedonistic!