At 07:07 PM 4/24/2005 -0500, Ronn! wrote: >> >> -human life begins at conception >> > >> >This is scientifically debateable. >> >>Really? This would require the [group of cells] to be something other >>than human life between the meeting of the sperm and the egg, and the >>beginning of human life. During this time the [group of cells] would have >>to be either: a) not human or b) not alive or c) both. > >It is well known that a significant fraction (1/3?) of fertilized eggs >never make it to a live birth.
I don't see how that is relevant. If one accepts that life begins at conception, then that would simply constitute death by natural causes. It would be a worthy effort of scientific research to see how to reduce those deaths, but no moral judgement would be attached to a death by natural causes. To question at hand is whether it is moral to kill a [group of cells] after conception. There are two possible arguments in favor of this: 1) The [group of cells] is not human life. 2) It is acceptable to kill some human lives >> >You can debate that the early embryonic stages up to some particular >> >event (say, brain development) are not much different from any other >> >organ in a person's body. >> >>Why would brain development distinguish the [group of cells] in question >>from the mother's body? >> >>How would you apply your definition to other organisms in the mother's >>body, such as bacteria, parasitic worms, ticks, etc.? > >Some have indeed described an embryo as a parasite inside the mother's >body, with the obvious implication that eliminating it is no different than >eliminating a tapeworm. You may make the above argument, and it would appear to be an argument along the lines of - "abortion is moral, because it is not the taking of a human life. the [group of cells] is not human." Do you really wish to make such an argument? JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
