Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (37125)	11/16/2001 8:27:55 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

So all the discussion of abortion really has to come down to a simple question: what forms of human genetic material are entitled to consideration as full human lives, and what aren't. And if you have several levels of rights, what are those rights, and why. ... the main issue: what does it mean to be human, and why? I'm glad you're back... OK. My standpoint. Modern science enables us to support and grow virtually any assemblage of cells, as far as desired. We cannot - yet, AFAIK - produce a baby from ova/sperm, through blastocyst, to embryo, to foetus, to neonate baby; but it won't be long. So it is now a matter of choice and wealth (in the developed world) as to whether and how any possible baby is born. Hence, from the viewpoint of 'sustainable life', I don't see any differentiation. Any operation to remove flesh - embryo, tumour, whatever - can be sustained, fed and grown. The next issue is the mother herself. I adhere to the idea that anyone undergoing some fleshy growth should ultimately have the choice of how long she bears it... if she chooses not to feed these cells from her own blood and body, then I do not see that anyone can say her nay. I believe humanity to be more than a matter of genetic inheritance. IOW, it takes more than the combination of sperm and ova to generate a new human: and I believe that fertilisation is no longer (if it ever was) a valid cut-off. We are differentiated above all by our brains, by the abilities of the human mind - not, IMO, by a religious classical-era definition of humanity. Certainly, there might be a potential new human within 24 weeks... but the embryo is undeniably a mass of cells sustained solely by this blood-link to the mother. At least until 20 weeks, probably until 24-28, it cannot think. So at least until that point it is not human. It can neither think nor draw from any but its host for its life. Humanity, IMO, needs nurturing beyond the basic physical fact of birth. To be human requires the capacity for independent thought. Until then, the potential human depends on its host to provide for all its needs... it cannot survive alone until it has left the host. So, life begins only when the foetus is no longer dependent for all its needs on the host. Then, outside the womb, it may beclassed and treated as human.