To: Solon who wrote (23221 ) 9/5/2001 6:32:06 PM From: TimF Respond to I've been away from this thread a bit but I'll try to answer your post a bit now. I'll probably be skipping over 2000 other posts on this thread but I left a shortcut to yours on my desktop.The metabolic view. There is no point when life begins. The sperm cell and egg cell are as alive as any other organism. The genetic view. A new individual is created at fertilization. This is when the genes from the two parents combine to form an individual with unique properties. The embryological view. In humans, identical twinning can occur as late as day 12 pc. Such twinning produces two individuals with different lives. Even conjoined ("Siamese") twins can have different personalities. Thus, a single individuality is not fixed earlier than day 12. The neurological view. Our society has defined death as the loss of the cerebral EEG (electroencephalogram) pattern. Conversely, some scientists have thought that the acquisition of the human EEG (at about 27 weeks) be defined as when a human life has begun. This view has been put forth most concretely by Morowitz and Trefil (1992). (This view and the ones following would allow mid-trimester abortions). The ecological/technological view. This view sees the human life as beginning when it can exist separately from its maternal biological environment. The natural limit of viability occurs when the lungs mature, but technological advances can now enable a premature infant to survive at about 25 wks gestation. (This is the view currently operating in many states. Once a fetus can be potentially independent, it cannot be aborted). The immunological view. This view sees human life as beginning when the organism recognizes the distinction between self and non-self. In humans, this occurs around the time of birth. The integrated physiological view. This sees human life as beginning when it has become independent of the mother and has its own functioning circulatory system, alimentary system, and respiratory system. This is the traditional birthday when the baby is born into the world and the umbilical cord is cut." The church and the state are separate, and they ought to remain so. These questions are much larger than science. These are questions of human meaning, and they are the province of philosophy, not of science. It is clear that valuing something for what it MIGHT become is entirely different than valuing something for what it IS. As an analogy, let us pretend that parents have discovered that their two year old daughter will remain forever at that stage of development. Will they still value her for being a thinking, feeling, and loving individual? Of course they will! She will still be valued for WHO she IS. Contrast this, however, with a fertilized egg in vitro If anyone truly believed that an egg was a person, then they would treat it as a person. Thus, if the in vitro egg was closer to the escape route of the burning building than the child (all things being equal)--then such a person would personally attempt to save, or to support the attempt by those whose duty it is to protect and preserve human rights (firemen, etc.) to save--the egg--EVERY SINGLE TIME. Because, if the egg is a person, then it DOES HAVE the same basic human rights to protection, etc. as does the child in this analogy. To fail to distinguish between your children and your eggs is to degrade and insult the dignity, the value, the suffering, the joy, and the grandeur of human consciousness and experience. It is to reduce human persons to If one removes POTENTIALITY from the zygote, one is left with a meaningless speck--without value, without interest. I consider your equivalency of a human cell to a breathing person to be one of the most vicious attacks on humanity that I have ever heard. I am repelled by your vision, and I am disgusted by your choice to publicly flaunt it--apparently without even a modicum of shame.
