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 : The abortion issue: pro-choice vs. anti-abortion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LLCF who wrote (225)	5/13/2011 12:09:18 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 286

When life begins isn't really the question. Life began billions of years ago. Its when you have a new life, but not when you have life. And also is that life human, and if it is, is it human from its beginning? Or to combine all that in to one question - When do you have a new human being? Although the opinion that life begins at fertilization is the most popular view among the public, many scientists no longer support this position, as an increasing number of scientific discoveries seem to contradict it. One such discovery in the last twenty years is that research has shown that there is no "moment of fertilization" at all. Scientists now choose to view fertilization as a process that occurs over a period of 12-24 hours. Which only makes fertilization a non-instantaneous process. But doesn't change anything about what you have at that end of that period. The most popular argument against the idea that life begins at the moment of fertilization has been dubbed the "twinning argument." The main point of this argument is that although a zygote is genetically unique from its parents from the moment a diploid organism is formed; it is possible for that zygote to split into two or more zygotes up until 14 or 15 days after fertilization. Which means that early in human development, a human being has the ability to turn in to two human beings. Proponents of this view often propose the following hypothetical situation: Suppose that an egg is fertilized. At that moment a new life begins; the zygote gains a "soul," in the Catholic line of thought, or "personhood" in a secular line of thought. Then suppose that the zygote splits to form twins. Does the soul of the zygote split as well? No, this is impossible. Yet no one would argue that twins share the same "soul" or the same "personhood." When (if ever) does a human being gain a soul (if you believe souls exist), and when does it become a person, are not the same question as when you have a human being. If the issue was about souls, and you assume they exist, a 2nd soul could be created or otherwise obtained at the moment of twining, but IMO the issue of souls is not important here, it can't proven they exist, and while law and public policy can legitimately be influenced by religion they shouldn't directly be based on theological concepts in a secular society. As for person, its not defined, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say it has many definitions. By some definitions a new born baby isn't a person. By some its entirely a legal issue and whatever the law recognizes as a person (including a corporation) is "a person"). I'd stick with "a human being", rather than "a possessor of a soul" or "a person". The argument that human life begins at the moment that chromosomes of the sperm meet the chromosomes of the egg to form a genetically unique individual is also endangered by the twinning argument because genetic uniqueness is not a requirement for an individual human life. "Genetic uniqueness" can be shared by multiple individuals, particularly identical twins. Genetic uniqueness is indeed not a requirement to have a separate individual life form, but it is an indicator of it. The fact that new life form has a different genetic code than its mother or its father (most particular than the mother, since no one is arguing its part of the father), indicates its a new life form, not part of the old ones that preceded it and created it. Just as it is possible for a zygote to form two or more individuals before it is implanted in the uterus, it is also possible for it to not continue to develop at all, but rather just become a part of the placenta. Yes its possible for the new life form to die and be absorbed. Its also possible for me to die and be absorbed by other life forms (say I get eaten by a predator). Embryological View ... The implications of a belief in this view include giving support to controversial forms of contraception including the "morning after" pill and contragestational agents as long as they are administered during the first two weeks of pregnancy. If one accepts that view, the "morning after pill" would be acceptable, but it doesn't support most abortion. Neurological view Long before the brain is developed, before you even have a brain, you have a distinct new human being. The issues related to nurological development don't really address that point. They do however address the issues of when you have nurological activity, when you have activity beyond some specfied level of complexity etc. Some might think those are the important moral issues not when you have a new human being, but even assuming they are the important moral issues, and determine when the fetus has any moral standing or rights, that still wouldn't imply that they determine when you have a new human being, only that determining when you have a new human being isn't the central moral / human rights question involved in the abortion issue. If one does think that nurological activity is the important moral distinction "By the end of seven weeks tickling of the mouth and nose of the developing embryo with a hair will cause it to flex its neck, while at the end of eight weeks there will be readable electrical activity coming from the brain." books.google.com If the opinion is that the moral question is not when any brain activity or observable behavior exists, but when "fully developed" brain activity occurs, well that doesn't happen until adulthood.