On 4/24/05, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
Do you never really think that we might be something more than this
haphazard, every-varying assortment of genes and organs, cells and
fungi and bacteria, and stolen designs and gross errors? Do you never
really think that perhaps we take 'human'ness for granted, identifying
it with our particular bodies, or bodies like them? Does not this
view of human-ness and the ethical ramifications give you pause,
especially considering the historical abuses of it ('His skin, and
thus his body, is different from ours- he is not human.')? Perhaps
there is a more general, abstract property of humans.
~Maru
'There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly
casual into the other. '
--"Dune Messiah"
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
