A zygote or a morula is not what is killed in an induced abortion. Also neither is the same as a smuge of sperm.
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG. MOST ABORTIONS ARE IN THE ZYGOTE/EMBRYO STAGE...even before consideraTION OF SPONTANEOUS ABORTIONS.
Some free assoxciation thoughts...
There are 7 basic conjectures as to when human DNA becomes a human person. These are simply different methods of defining a possible person. Some of them (those involving "soul infusion") are based strictly on imagination around the supernatural, or the unknown. They are entirely arbitrary, and unsatisfying to the discriminating mind. Virtually anything can be imagined, and imaginings of the supernatural are all equally valid--as well as being infinitely unlikely or improbable.
The "blueprint" argument is one I have heard Neocom trot out--as well as yourself and others. It is a fatuous argument which has a careless and peremptory appeal. The blueprint, however, exists at all times and had nothing to do with conception except in the minds of inexperienced thinkers. The two gametes are simply two halves of the diagram. If we float them in an appropriate liquid medium in a sealed beaker, it is inevitable that the egg will be fertilized. Even some scientists, however, are sufficiently myopic to be unaware of how defective the blueprint argument is. Also, the "soul infusion" argument often gets intertwined tightly with the blueprint argument, so that some people are left incapable of unravelling the threads. But this does not usually bother them as they are unaware of it. Mystical thinking can be very satisfying in that it is not subject to rational examination.
The idea to define ONE sperm and ONE egg as a human being merely because the chromosome structure is present , is a shallow and insupportable idea. It is insulting to humanity, and it is absurd to the extreme.
The chromosomes in a sperm are human. Every sperm is human life. Every egg is human life. Every human cell is human life. A zygote is human life, as well, but none of these examples are human persons--except in the minds of those people who have so little regard for human persons, that they will deign to define them as equal to any common bacterium, virus, or other microscopic speck. Even for individuals who have developed true human attributes of form, function, feeling, thought, and impact--sensible people still recognize that a brain dead state robs them of the essential attributes that we associate with humanness--the ability to think and to feel. We kill these individuals by removing the vital nutrients that were maintaining their human life--in the same way medicine kills cells that never were human persons, by preventing the cells from dividing and becoming. Unless one believes in ensoulment, this is no different than preventing sperm from reaching the egg. Even when the bottle of wine is opened at dinner--the blueprint is there. The waiting sperm have probably been there for a month. Every part of the potential human is present. They are present everywhere, all the time: human sperm waiting to meet human eggs. The meeting is one of the stages of becoming. The blueprint is already there.
Are Sperm A2685 and Egg D2310 PERSONS because they are going to mix it up after this botle of wine? No. Of course not. What they might become is not what they are. They are human life, but so is a hair cell. They are at a stage of development--a datingf stage. The penetration of the egg will be an intimacy stage, and so on. But these gametes coming together in a tiny cell are not people, and they do not form a person. They form ONE CELL. They are what they were: a blueprint for a thinking, feeling, dancing human being. A human being who may harm the world, or one who may help the world. We value that cell for what it may become--not for what it is. If it stayed what it was for eternity, it would have no value. It is valued for its potential, not for its actuality. Most of these cells will be killed off in accordance with God's plan. Others will bve killed by medical intervention as they were unwanted.
There is a time in fetal development when I consider this human tissue to be approaching personhood in fundamental ways, and that is the time when a certain brain activity begins. However, I have already explained, that this does not justify (for me) making an adult human being into a non person without the right to exist free.
Descriptively, the zygote is one sperm absorbed into an egg. This smudge is invisible to the naked eye--and, of course, it has none of the actual characteristics that we associate with humanity: No thought, no feeling, no nothing. In three weeks, however, the embryo reaches the point (actually A point)--where it has become visible to the unaided eye. Still, there is nothing human about it other than the fact that the DNA is a blueprint for a human person.
25-75 % of these specks will be killed by Mother Nature--or by God, for those who hold to that particular supernatural belief. If these tiny cells are properly described as persons, then it certainly suggests the question as to why an all powerful and all loving God would bother to slip a soul into the essence of the two gametes--only to kill billions of them? How ironic is it that people would "defend" these cells on behalf of the supernatural force who is killing them, and that they would use the violation of her WILL as a justification for this defence. Incredible (but understandable) logic for people who live by imagination rather than inquiry.
Now why would a God slip a soul into the 2 invisible gametes, then--having thus turned it into a person WITHOUT free will, without ANYTHING so to speak--then proceed to kill that person. If these smudges of sperm are supposed to be persons, then why does God make them, and why does She immediately kill them? If God has not committed an act of evil by creating a person out of the sperm/egg, by mixing in a soul--and then killing the little trooper--then how can a person be said to have committed an evil by killing the fertilized egg?
Who else is capable of slipping an entire soul into a single cell--invisible to the eye? Who else would be permitted to touch the actual soul of people? To suggest that gOd would allow the essense of Her spiritual kingdom to be touched by any other than hands of Grace, would be to suggest a careless, thoughtless, and unconcerned God. This would not comport with the supernatural tenets of the major religions.
No. It is God, Herself, who slips the soul into the single cell, and it is God, Herself, who kills the little zygote, approximately half the time--sometimes within seconds. Why would a God take the trouble to infuse a soul into this cellular speck. It is not a test of free will; there is nothing there to will. All can these Acts of God be reconciled with the concept of benevolence? God either has control over Her universe or She does not. By the common definitions that prominent humans have imagined--God has ALL the control. The buck stops with Her.
Is it perhaps we who are mistaken in our imaginings? Might God slip the soul in at the time of neuron activity and sensation, rather than at the moment when the egg is fertilized?
How we define a human person is all a function of language--a derivative of thought. When people find themselves using language in absurd ways (an egg IS a chicken because someday it MIGHT be a chicken), then people ought to consider the possibility that their imagination and their bias is interfering with their ability to comprehend their surrounding world in a meaningful way.
There is no CERTAINTY thatr a fertilized egg will develop into a human being. It is perhaps a 50% possibility--but it is ONLY a possibility. Likewise, the possibility inherent in the blueprint immediately BEFORE the sperm has actually penetrated the egg, is actually essentially the same as the possibility as immediately AFTER it has penetrated the egg. Likewise, the possibility exists very strongly just before intercourse, and it exists when the wine is being opened at dinner. The sperm and the egg are human life. They have human chromosomes. They each carry half the blueprint for the creation of a human person (as contrasted with merely human life). The fact that I do not know WHICH sperm will meet with WHICH egg (or when) does not deny the fact that the blueprints exist, and that the particular chromosomes necessary to produce a thinking, feeling, sentient creature are present and ready to mix it up.
The arbitrary choice to define a human person as a fertilized egg is actually quite ridiculous. The fertilized egg is just a stage in the process of creating a living, breathing human person--a person for whom rights may be acknowledged, and by whom rights may be claimed and fought for.
How shallow it would be to define a PERSON as similar to a quail egg--only too small to see with the naked eye: Nothing about thought, nothing about feeling--nothing about organs, limbs, nerves or neurons--nothing but a strand of DNA. How shallow and how insulting to humanity.
To define a thing by what it might potentially become is the most callow sophistry. It permits the most absurd rationalizations, and the most pathetic and tiresome bromides. A box of sand IS a set of glassware? A 2 month baby IS a teenager? An egg IS a chicken? A pupae IS a bee? It will buzz like a bee, sting like a bee, communicate like a bee, defend like a bee. It will pollinate flowers, it will share, it will fly miles and miles and miles like a bee...someday...if it lives long enough to become one. |
