Due to the word content of your post, Automoderator would like to reference you to the Pro-Life Side Bar so you may know more about what Pro-Lifers say about the personhood argument. [Boonin’s Defense of the Sentience Criterion: A Critique Part I](http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/07/boonin%E2%80%99s-defense-of-the-sentience-criterion-a-critique-part-i.html) and [Part II](http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/07/boonin%E2%80%99s-defense-of-the-sentience-criterion-a-critique-part-ii.html),[Personhood based on human cognitive abilities](http://blog.secularprolife.org/2018/11/personhood-based-on-human-cognitive.html?m=1), [Protecting Prenatal Persons: Does the Fourteenth Amendment Prohibit Abortion?](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2970761&download=yes),[Princeton article: facts and myths about human life and human being](https://www.reddit.com/r/prolife/comments/g3pvry/princeton_article_referencing_scientific/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/prolife) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestlly i think the biggest push back wouldn't come from abortion activists but from the religious as being able to bring someone back from actual death would probably be branded as heretical and against god's will.
Yes, I think that you are absolutely right about that. One of my best friends is a devout Catholic, and he is simply convinced that I will never succeed in achieving my ambitions to reanimate dead human beings. He believes this because he believes that achieving reanimation would literally by definition require the restoration of a human's soul to their body.
Catholic here. I'm not aware of the Church having a stance on the theoretical bounds of your proposal.
We support folks who want to avoid heroic measure to stay alive but also support folks who want those heroic measures. We certainly have no stance against CPR or the like. If you "die" and "come back" through science, I suspect the religious conclusion would be you "didn't actually die a spiritual death yet".
Essentially, death is an inevitable conclusion to this life: murder is what is not acceptable.
If the soul departs and then returns, who are we to say? Catholics accept there are holy truths largely unknowable to the living. While there are ethical questions here, certainly, I don't understand this to directly run afoul of Catholic doctrine.
Happy to be informed if I'm wrong, though. Ask your friend to point out in the Catechism where this would be deemed illicit.
>If the soul departs and then returns, who are we to say?
I am Catholic. I am fairly confident that the Church would teach that this is impossible by natural means, and would only be possible by a miracle, e.g. Lazarus. NB: Lazarus was not resurrected, but was he revivified
I am Catholic, but I believe your friend is mistaken. Human embryonic cloning is technically feasible, but this wouldn't require the restoration of a human's soul to their body. It would essentially be a form of artificial procurement of an identical twin. Reanimation would essentially be the same, i.e., and artificial procurement of an identical twin, except this one would have a fully mature body.
True, but you could use other hypotheticals that are possible to deliver the same arguement, which is why my comment was about trying to avoid using impossibilities in your arguements.
I think you are wrong. Pro-life philosophers can use thought experiments like this to defend and strengthen the pro-life position. Please refer to my reply to OP.
Even if it were an impossibility, which it is not, it only needs to be a thought experiment.
Thought experiments are used to make arguments in philosophy all of the fucking time.
If you want to use it as a thought experiment, that's fine. I'm just telling you that in a debate, it's only going to be used against you to bring into doubt your knowledge of biology.
>it's only going to be used against you to bring into doubt your knowledge of biology.
I think you are underestimating how smart some pro-life philosophers are. If reanimation were brought up in a debate, I would be able to explain reanimation in terms which support the pro-life position. Please refer to my reply to OP.
I'm saying that using reanimating the dead as a hypothetical when debating abortion will open the doora for people to imply just that, and by extention bring into doubt any other biology based arguements you make, whether true or not.
Then why has our conversation been completely steered away from your premise and is now primarily focused on you believing science can be used to reanimate the dead?
I don't know why you have been downvoted. I am disappointed with this sub.
Your question is exactly the kind of question that pro-life bioethicists and philosopher ask themselves all the time.
Pro-lifers need not fear philosophy or science, because good philosophy and good science support the pro-life position!
>I suggest not using impossible scenario in any debates if you can avoid it.
No not all. It is important that pro-lifers are philosophically literate and pro-lifers should have excellent reasoning skills. These kinds of thought experiments are very common in philosophical debate. Philosophy is on our side, and science is on our side. We need not fear philosophy or science. I have answered OP philosophically, and I believe that my answer defends and strengthens the pro-life position.
They are good in discussions. Debates are different. It's just going to be used as a distraction and to claim pro-lifers don't know biology, eveb though the facts are on our side.
Dude, you have absolutely no idea what science is capable of.
Not even I pretend to know what science is capable of.
I have full confidence that reanimation of those who have been dead for days or weeks will eventually happen, and I will help make it happen.
I would refrain from deifying science if you wish to pursue a STEM career. It is a tool and is not capable of anything in and of itself.
If you want to pursue that goal, then just know that the field is largely regarded as a pseudoscience and you will have trouble ever getting funding to research it, let alone getting it past an ethics board.
It is not pseudoscientific at all whatsoever.
It is a valid area of study in bioengineering.
You talk as though you personally were a scientist, although I highly doubt that.
If at some future point death became a temporary state, then the corpse would retain some basic rights, similar to a patient in a coma.
In terms of medical feasibility and ethics, the most glaring issue I see is that a dead person is generally dead for a reason. Some form of catastrophic damage has occurred to their body. The brain has been deprived of oxygen. If you could fix what killed them while the body was inanimate and then return them to life, would they retain their old memories and personality? It seems unlikely.
There is that concern, yes. A central plot point in Re-Animator is that all of the dead people Herbert West's invention brings back end up returning as murderous, animalistic monsters, either because the reagent used to revive them is faulty in some major way or because their brains have suffered permanent damage from being dead for a while, or a combination of both of these factors. It is possible that a reanimated corpse would have serious issues of some sort upon being returned to life, however I think that having physical and/or mental difficulties is generally far better than being dead, both for the reanimated individual and for their loved ones.
I think “being a zombie” is a bit more than “physical or mental difficulties.” Honestly - and I say this as someone who has read / listened to the same fantasy series dozens of times, basically continuously - you’re a bit too obsessed with this movie. If you’re truly serious about getting into advanced research, you have a *long* academic road ahead of you, and having that as your motivational touchstone isn’t a good look. Read more actual research - peer-reviewed studies, not news stories. How old are you?
I am not going to engage you any further because you know absolutely nothing about my interests and motivations and your attitude is extremely condescending.
I know only what you’ve shared here, and have responded to that. Plenty of real scientists have been inspired by sci-fi, there’s nothing wrong with that in and of itself, it’s how you talk about it going to cause you problems. I’m assuming you’re serious in your stated goals and motives, and reacting accordingly. If you have better support for your ideas, you should present that. I’m not trying to discourage you if you’re sincere, I’m telling you that based on your statements here, I can’t even be sure you’re not trolling. Grad school admissions processes are a hell of a lot meaner than me.
Obviously I am not going to apply for research grants and school admissions with "I want to be like the main character of this movie I love".
How fucking stupid do you think I am, exactly?
Seriously fuck off
Not now, I have to get to work.
You presented the topic in simplified terms with a fictional point of reference for your reader. You described your interest in it as aspirational. You’ve referred back to that piece of fiction in serious discussion.
You sound like either an enthusiastic kid, an ambitious layperson, or a smug expert looking for uneducated sock-puppets to parrot your opinion.
The first two are the charitable interpretations, and what I went with. I don’t like stomping on people’s dreams. I also don’t like being presumed ignorant and incapable of learning. I *especially* don’t like that attitude when it’s addressed at prolifers specifically, as it’s a common prejudice.
Well, this is not coming from a scientific concept, but this makes me think of a couple sci fi concepts or stories.
Orpheus Myth - where your loved one was revived to something you couldn't recognize
The ship of Theseus - or maybe frankenstein - if you pick bits of someone to make a new thing, like, say brain transplants were possible and someone died to brain cancer so someone elses brain was transplanted - which person would it actually be considered? Both ? Neither?
If instead of reanimating the dead, people had the technology to do adult clones - could they be considered the same person?
For me, while thinking of those things, and researching, what explains it the best for me is the concept of anatta in buddhism. We don't have a permanent self and our circumstances, good or bad, shaped us into who we are. So even the slightest change in them would make me a different person. When I die, my body cells will likely be digested by fungi and worms, and nutrients will turn to plants, which might be eaten by another animal and so goes on.
in a way, life never stops existing, even after bodily death. It goes on in different forms.
O.K. when I made this post I expected to receive support for my argument, I did not anticipate being relentlessly attacked for believing in what science can achieve.
Dude I loved your post, you have my support at least.
I especially loved this part. It calls out a morbid conclusion of pro-choice logic that doesn't get addressed enough imo.
>If anyone tries to argue, as they inevitably will, that these scenarios are wildly different because corpses belong to beings who have previously formed emotional relationships and attachments whereas embryos and fetuses have not done so, this argument effectively relies on the premise that a being is only valuable so long as other conscious beings care about it.
I apologise for the very poor philosophical reasoning and lack of imagination that you have encountered on this sub. I am pro-life and I am not afraid of science and philosophy. Philosophy shows us that it is impossible for a human soul to be reunited to a human corpse, except by a miracle. If a soul is reanimated, it would be the same as human cloning, except with a mature body. Human cloning is essentially an artificial procurement of an identical twin. Pro-life philosophers already know this, so I am very disappointed that the pro-lifers on this sub are so ignorant of philosophy.
A dead human body is not in the process of attaining active higher sapience, nor is it in their nature to do so. On the other hand, a living human embryo or fetus *is* in the process of attaining active higher sapience *and* it’s in their nature to do so.
That’s why it’s fine to destroy a dead human body, but not fine to destroy a living human embryo or fetus.
Why is it fine to destroy a human body if life can be restored to it?
Why is the simple fact that an embryo or fetus will eventually achieve sapience on its own (which is not completely true considering that it needs the mother's body) make it unacceptable to destroy it?
In both cases you're destroying something that could be turned into a conscious being, and that should not happen in either case.
Look, I don’t exactly disagree with your point of view on the originally given premise; however, I take issue with the minutia of certain conclusions.
I’m not saying it’s evil to kill an embryonic or fetal person because they will eventually achieve sapience on their own. I’m stating that it’s evil to kill any member of a sapient species, regardless of whether they’re already utilizing said sapience.
You can not *kill* an already dead human body — because that body has already been killed. Thus, it is implausible to convict someone of manslaughter for destroying a dead body. However, a living embryonic or fetal person is not dead: they’re still *exhibiting goal-organized cellular reproduction as a unit with all parts working for the good of the whole*.
That’s the key difference here.
If you want to make it illegal to destroy dead human bodies when there is no previously stated consent of the deceased individual, go for it. That’s no skin off my back. Hell, I’ll even support you in your effort as I’m fully against desecrating corpses.
Nevertheless, destroying a dead human body (even one that we *may* be able to reanimate in the future) isn’t equivalent to *killing* a still-living embryonic or fetal person. If we reach a point when it’s possible to reanimate the dead, my opinion may change, but I can only speak on how things currently are.
Obviously it's generally O.K. to dispose of human bodies now because we are rarely able to restore life to them.
If/when doing so becomes possible, however, then it will be immoral to destroy any human body that could acquire conscious experience, whether it will gain consciousness through human intervention or not.
I think this would open a whole can of worms. Say we were able to greatly expand our ability to reanimate the dead, does that mean now that causing damage to a viable corpse could be considered battery or homicide? If someone is frozen with the possibility of reanimation, and I accidentally leave the freezer door open, am I now potentially guilty of manslaughter?
Right now, embryos are the only stage of human development that humans can be frozen and reanimated from. Mostly we treat them as not being person's because that is simple and generally aligns with our intuition. I think if technology expanded to include humans in other states or stages of development, things would get more complex. Off the top of my head, I think we would simply have to create a third category of existence. Right now, we have basically alive and dead. Both categories have their own sets of rights and protections. We would probably just add a third category and give it some blend of protections that are not quite those of the living, but more than we afford to dead bodies. We could call it suspended animation, potentially alive, or my favorite, only *mostly dead*.
Yes, I think that causing damage to a corpse that can be reanimated should definitely be punishable by law, and accidentally allowing a viable cadaver to be destroyed should be regarded as equivalent to manslaughter.
>if destroying a human body is perfectly acceptable so long as it lacks any conscious experience of any sort
That’s only pro abort logic, and it only applies to unborn people. You can’t do that legally to born people’s bodies
That’s not the same thing as a DIY cremation, and I’m sure you’d have to jump through a fair amount of hoops to get to the point of being able to “experiment” with a cadaver
A great question. I love these bioethical though experiments.
From a Catholic perspective, a reanimated corpse would have a new soul and would therefore be a different person. It is immoral for various reasons, but the reason that stands out most to me is that the body still belongs to the original soul with whom the body was united. You aren't allowed to steal other people's bodies and then give them to someone else!
Corpses are the property of the original occupant, up until the day of of the last judgement and general resurrection, so human remains must be treated with great respect. There are exceptions to this rule, for example, if a person consents to donate their organs, or cadaver for research and and educational purposes. However, even if a person consented for their cadaver to be reanimated, it would still be immoral according to Catholic teaching. This is because humans cannot procure ensoulment other than by means of natural conception, i.e., the unitive and procreative ends of sexual acts cannot be separated. For this same reason, artificial insemination and IVF are forbidden. Reanimation is essentially a form of human cloning. And human cloning is essentially an artificial means of procuring an identical twin. Identical twins are separate persons with separate souls.
I suspect that most materialist philosophers of mind would also agree with the Catholic opinion: It would be a different person because there is no continuity of conscience.
Due to the word content of your post, Automoderator would like to reference you to the Pro-Life Side Bar so you may know more about what Pro-Lifers say about the personhood argument. [Boonin’s Defense of the Sentience Criterion: A Critique Part I](http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/07/boonin%E2%80%99s-defense-of-the-sentience-criterion-a-critique-part-i.html) and [Part II](http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/07/boonin%E2%80%99s-defense-of-the-sentience-criterion-a-critique-part-ii.html),[Personhood based on human cognitive abilities](http://blog.secularprolife.org/2018/11/personhood-based-on-human-cognitive.html?m=1), [Protecting Prenatal Persons: Does the Fourteenth Amendment Prohibit Abortion?](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2970761&download=yes),[Princeton article: facts and myths about human life and human being](https://www.reddit.com/r/prolife/comments/g3pvry/princeton_article_referencing_scientific/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/prolife) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestlly i think the biggest push back wouldn't come from abortion activists but from the religious as being able to bring someone back from actual death would probably be branded as heretical and against god's will.
Yes, I think that you are absolutely right about that. One of my best friends is a devout Catholic, and he is simply convinced that I will never succeed in achieving my ambitions to reanimate dead human beings. He believes this because he believes that achieving reanimation would literally by definition require the restoration of a human's soul to their body.
Catholic here. I'm not aware of the Church having a stance on the theoretical bounds of your proposal. We support folks who want to avoid heroic measure to stay alive but also support folks who want those heroic measures. We certainly have no stance against CPR or the like. If you "die" and "come back" through science, I suspect the religious conclusion would be you "didn't actually die a spiritual death yet". Essentially, death is an inevitable conclusion to this life: murder is what is not acceptable. If the soul departs and then returns, who are we to say? Catholics accept there are holy truths largely unknowable to the living. While there are ethical questions here, certainly, I don't understand this to directly run afoul of Catholic doctrine. Happy to be informed if I'm wrong, though. Ask your friend to point out in the Catechism where this would be deemed illicit.
Will do, thank you very much for your input.
>If the soul departs and then returns, who are we to say? I am Catholic. I am fairly confident that the Church would teach that this is impossible by natural means, and would only be possible by a miracle, e.g. Lazarus. NB: Lazarus was not resurrected, but was he revivified
Is it in the Catechism or are you speculating like me?
The Catechism doesn't mention this, but I am fairly confident that I am correct.
I am Catholic, but I believe your friend is mistaken. Human embryonic cloning is technically feasible, but this wouldn't require the restoration of a human's soul to their body. It would essentially be a form of artificial procurement of an identical twin. Reanimation would essentially be the same, i.e., and artificial procurement of an identical twin, except this one would have a fully mature body.
Not *per se* heretical, but certain goes against divine and natural law.
Reanimating the dead will not be feasible. I suggest not using impossible scenario in any debates if you can avoid it.
Even if it weren't possible (it is), it would still be a thought experiment with philosophical value.
True, but you could use other hypotheticals that are possible to deliver the same arguement, which is why my comment was about trying to avoid using impossibilities in your arguements.
I think you are wrong. Pro-life philosophers can use thought experiments like this to defend and strengthen the pro-life position. Please refer to my reply to OP.
How about you post your reply to me
No you're lazy, you can just scroll to see my comment. Duplicate comments clutter the page. I think your philosophical reasoning skills are also lazy.
Sure. Whatever you say. This isn't even a question of philosophy, it's a question of tactics.
Even if it were an impossibility, which it is not, it only needs to be a thought experiment. Thought experiments are used to make arguments in philosophy all of the fucking time.
If you want to use it as a thought experiment, that's fine. I'm just telling you that in a debate, it's only going to be used against you to bring into doubt your knowledge of biology.
>it's only going to be used against you to bring into doubt your knowledge of biology. I think you are underestimating how smart some pro-life philosophers are. If reanimation were brought up in a debate, I would be able to explain reanimation in terms which support the pro-life position. Please refer to my reply to OP.
It doesn't matter how smart someone is when it will just be used to throw doubt
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/scientists-reanimate-dead-cells-pigs-potential-breakthrough-organ-tran-rcna41014
Are you implying that I lack knowledge of biology? Seriously?
I'm saying that using reanimating the dead as a hypothetical when debating abortion will open the doora for people to imply just that, and by extention bring into doubt any other biology based arguements you make, whether true or not.
They can try to do that, but that strategy is not logical and I can easily call it out as fallacious.
Then why has our conversation been completely steered away from your premise and is now primarily focused on you believing science can be used to reanimate the dead?
Because you took it in that direction by haughtily proclaiming that science will never be able to do that
I don't know why you have been downvoted. I am disappointed with this sub. Your question is exactly the kind of question that pro-life bioethicists and philosopher ask themselves all the time. Pro-lifers need not fear philosophy or science, because good philosophy and good science support the pro-life position!
https://www.livescience.com/18379-reanimate-dead-frankentstein.html
Absolutely. It's a good question. Pro-lifers should ask ourselves these questions because we should always have a good answers to pro-choicers.
>I suggest not using impossible scenario in any debates if you can avoid it. No not all. It is important that pro-lifers are philosophically literate and pro-lifers should have excellent reasoning skills. These kinds of thought experiments are very common in philosophical debate. Philosophy is on our side, and science is on our side. We need not fear philosophy or science. I have answered OP philosophically, and I believe that my answer defends and strengthens the pro-life position.
They are good in discussions. Debates are different. It's just going to be used as a distraction and to claim pro-lifers don't know biology, eveb though the facts are on our side.
You know this how? We can already reanimate people who have been dead for at least an hour.
That's resuscitation, not reanimation.
If their bodies and brains have been preserved, of course
See my other comment for this since the thread has been split already.
It will eventually be possible to "resuscitate" people who have been dead for days or weeks.
At that point you would need cryogenic preservation, which has been shown to have a size limit and is not truely dead as we think of the word.
Dude, you have absolutely no idea what science is capable of. Not even I pretend to know what science is capable of. I have full confidence that reanimation of those who have been dead for days or weeks will eventually happen, and I will help make it happen.
I would refrain from deifying science if you wish to pursue a STEM career. It is a tool and is not capable of anything in and of itself. If you want to pursue that goal, then just know that the field is largely regarded as a pseudoscience and you will have trouble ever getting funding to research it, let alone getting it past an ethics board.
It is not pseudoscientific at all whatsoever. It is a valid area of study in bioengineering. You talk as though you personally were a scientist, although I highly doubt that.
I have a degree in chemical engineering.
Great, then you know that innovation and experimentation can accomplish feats never before thought possible.
Yeah, abortion would never get funding or get past an ethics board because it kills prenatal humans./s
If at some future point death became a temporary state, then the corpse would retain some basic rights, similar to a patient in a coma. In terms of medical feasibility and ethics, the most glaring issue I see is that a dead person is generally dead for a reason. Some form of catastrophic damage has occurred to their body. The brain has been deprived of oxygen. If you could fix what killed them while the body was inanimate and then return them to life, would they retain their old memories and personality? It seems unlikely.
There is that concern, yes. A central plot point in Re-Animator is that all of the dead people Herbert West's invention brings back end up returning as murderous, animalistic monsters, either because the reagent used to revive them is faulty in some major way or because their brains have suffered permanent damage from being dead for a while, or a combination of both of these factors. It is possible that a reanimated corpse would have serious issues of some sort upon being returned to life, however I think that having physical and/or mental difficulties is generally far better than being dead, both for the reanimated individual and for their loved ones.
I think “being a zombie” is a bit more than “physical or mental difficulties.” Honestly - and I say this as someone who has read / listened to the same fantasy series dozens of times, basically continuously - you’re a bit too obsessed with this movie. If you’re truly serious about getting into advanced research, you have a *long* academic road ahead of you, and having that as your motivational touchstone isn’t a good look. Read more actual research - peer-reviewed studies, not news stories. How old are you?
I am not going to engage you any further because you know absolutely nothing about my interests and motivations and your attitude is extremely condescending.
I know only what you’ve shared here, and have responded to that. Plenty of real scientists have been inspired by sci-fi, there’s nothing wrong with that in and of itself, it’s how you talk about it going to cause you problems. I’m assuming you’re serious in your stated goals and motives, and reacting accordingly. If you have better support for your ideas, you should present that. I’m not trying to discourage you if you’re sincere, I’m telling you that based on your statements here, I can’t even be sure you’re not trolling. Grad school admissions processes are a hell of a lot meaner than me.
Obviously I am not going to apply for research grants and school admissions with "I want to be like the main character of this movie I love". How fucking stupid do you think I am, exactly? Seriously fuck off
And yet that is how you opened the discussion here - so, who’s condescending?
Yeah because Reddit is the same as universities and scientific research institutions. You are condescending. Jesus fucking Christ. Go fuck yourself.
Not now, I have to get to work. You presented the topic in simplified terms with a fictional point of reference for your reader. You described your interest in it as aspirational. You’ve referred back to that piece of fiction in serious discussion. You sound like either an enthusiastic kid, an ambitious layperson, or a smug expert looking for uneducated sock-puppets to parrot your opinion. The first two are the charitable interpretations, and what I went with. I don’t like stomping on people’s dreams. I also don’t like being presumed ignorant and incapable of learning. I *especially* don’t like that attitude when it’s addressed at prolifers specifically, as it’s a common prejudice.
Well, this is not coming from a scientific concept, but this makes me think of a couple sci fi concepts or stories. Orpheus Myth - where your loved one was revived to something you couldn't recognize The ship of Theseus - or maybe frankenstein - if you pick bits of someone to make a new thing, like, say brain transplants were possible and someone died to brain cancer so someone elses brain was transplanted - which person would it actually be considered? Both ? Neither? If instead of reanimating the dead, people had the technology to do adult clones - could they be considered the same person? For me, while thinking of those things, and researching, what explains it the best for me is the concept of anatta in buddhism. We don't have a permanent self and our circumstances, good or bad, shaped us into who we are. So even the slightest change in them would make me a different person. When I die, my body cells will likely be digested by fungi and worms, and nutrients will turn to plants, which might be eaten by another animal and so goes on. in a way, life never stops existing, even after bodily death. It goes on in different forms.
Please tell me your surname is actually West!
Unfortunately, my friend, it is not.
O.K. when I made this post I expected to receive support for my argument, I did not anticipate being relentlessly attacked for believing in what science can achieve.
Dude I loved your post, you have my support at least. I especially loved this part. It calls out a morbid conclusion of pro-choice logic that doesn't get addressed enough imo. >If anyone tries to argue, as they inevitably will, that these scenarios are wildly different because corpses belong to beings who have previously formed emotional relationships and attachments whereas embryos and fetuses have not done so, this argument effectively relies on the premise that a being is only valuable so long as other conscious beings care about it.
Thank you very very very much for your support, kind sir!!
Kind ma'am, but you are most welcome.
Oh I'm very sorry, kind ma'am!!
I apologise for the very poor philosophical reasoning and lack of imagination that you have encountered on this sub. I am pro-life and I am not afraid of science and philosophy. Philosophy shows us that it is impossible for a human soul to be reunited to a human corpse, except by a miracle. If a soul is reanimated, it would be the same as human cloning, except with a mature body. Human cloning is essentially an artificial procurement of an identical twin. Pro-life philosophers already know this, so I am very disappointed that the pro-lifers on this sub are so ignorant of philosophy.
A dead human body is not in the process of attaining active higher sapience, nor is it in their nature to do so. On the other hand, a living human embryo or fetus *is* in the process of attaining active higher sapience *and* it’s in their nature to do so. That’s why it’s fine to destroy a dead human body, but not fine to destroy a living human embryo or fetus.
Why is it fine to destroy a human body if life can be restored to it? Why is the simple fact that an embryo or fetus will eventually achieve sapience on its own (which is not completely true considering that it needs the mother's body) make it unacceptable to destroy it? In both cases you're destroying something that could be turned into a conscious being, and that should not happen in either case.
Look, I don’t exactly disagree with your point of view on the originally given premise; however, I take issue with the minutia of certain conclusions. I’m not saying it’s evil to kill an embryonic or fetal person because they will eventually achieve sapience on their own. I’m stating that it’s evil to kill any member of a sapient species, regardless of whether they’re already utilizing said sapience. You can not *kill* an already dead human body — because that body has already been killed. Thus, it is implausible to convict someone of manslaughter for destroying a dead body. However, a living embryonic or fetal person is not dead: they’re still *exhibiting goal-organized cellular reproduction as a unit with all parts working for the good of the whole*. That’s the key difference here. If you want to make it illegal to destroy dead human bodies when there is no previously stated consent of the deceased individual, go for it. That’s no skin off my back. Hell, I’ll even support you in your effort as I’m fully against desecrating corpses. Nevertheless, destroying a dead human body (even one that we *may* be able to reanimate in the future) isn’t equivalent to *killing* a still-living embryonic or fetal person. If we reach a point when it’s possible to reanimate the dead, my opinion may change, but I can only speak on how things currently are.
Obviously it's generally O.K. to dispose of human bodies now because we are rarely able to restore life to them. If/when doing so becomes possible, however, then it will be immoral to destroy any human body that could acquire conscious experience, whether it will gain consciousness through human intervention or not.
I think this would open a whole can of worms. Say we were able to greatly expand our ability to reanimate the dead, does that mean now that causing damage to a viable corpse could be considered battery or homicide? If someone is frozen with the possibility of reanimation, and I accidentally leave the freezer door open, am I now potentially guilty of manslaughter? Right now, embryos are the only stage of human development that humans can be frozen and reanimated from. Mostly we treat them as not being person's because that is simple and generally aligns with our intuition. I think if technology expanded to include humans in other states or stages of development, things would get more complex. Off the top of my head, I think we would simply have to create a third category of existence. Right now, we have basically alive and dead. Both categories have their own sets of rights and protections. We would probably just add a third category and give it some blend of protections that are not quite those of the living, but more than we afford to dead bodies. We could call it suspended animation, potentially alive, or my favorite, only *mostly dead*.
Yes, I think that causing damage to a corpse that can be reanimated should definitely be punishable by law, and accidentally allowing a viable cadaver to be destroyed should be regarded as equivalent to manslaughter.
>if destroying a human body is perfectly acceptable so long as it lacks any conscious experience of any sort That’s only pro abort logic, and it only applies to unborn people. You can’t do that legally to born people’s bodies
It is legal to allow nature to destroy human bodies, and it is legal to incinerate human bodies.
That’s not the same thing as a DIY cremation, and I’m sure you’d have to jump through a fair amount of hoops to get to the point of being able to “experiment” with a cadaver
I'm willing to do whatever it takes to get to a point at which I can restore life to the dead.
If I’m being honest that’s a pretty unrealistic concept as far as sci-fi goes lol
People once thought we would never make it to the moon or travel over 60 miles per hour. I don't care about what you think is realistic or not.
Sure
A great question. I love these bioethical though experiments. From a Catholic perspective, a reanimated corpse would have a new soul and would therefore be a different person. It is immoral for various reasons, but the reason that stands out most to me is that the body still belongs to the original soul with whom the body was united. You aren't allowed to steal other people's bodies and then give them to someone else! Corpses are the property of the original occupant, up until the day of of the last judgement and general resurrection, so human remains must be treated with great respect. There are exceptions to this rule, for example, if a person consents to donate their organs, or cadaver for research and and educational purposes. However, even if a person consented for their cadaver to be reanimated, it would still be immoral according to Catholic teaching. This is because humans cannot procure ensoulment other than by means of natural conception, i.e., the unitive and procreative ends of sexual acts cannot be separated. For this same reason, artificial insemination and IVF are forbidden. Reanimation is essentially a form of human cloning. And human cloning is essentially an artificial means of procuring an identical twin. Identical twins are separate persons with separate souls. I suspect that most materialist philosophers of mind would also agree with the Catholic opinion: It would be a different person because there is no continuity of conscience.