On 25/07/2006, at 1:14 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, I'm saying WHAT THEY'RE CALLED is beside the point.
Which I continue to fail to understand. Obviously, some very
intelligent people believe that HeLa are of, at minimum, another
genus from humans, let alone of another species. Are you trying to
say that this is entirely whimsical?
I'm saying it's an interesting philosophical position. But what they
are, indisputably, is a line of cells derived from a human that breed
indefinitely. They're human cells that multiply. My point was simply
that not all human cells which have a full complement of DNA and are
individualistic go on to be human beings, and even fertilised ova
don't. My view is that simply having a full complement of human DNA
does not make you human. There's something else to being human, and
it's to do with our minds not our bodies.
OK. Take an 8-cell embryo. Bisect it. Implant one half, it'll
become a normal person. Is it murder to kill the other half?
Is it murder to kill an identical twin?
Yes, it's murder to kill a twin... if they've been born. But look at
the developmental mess that twinning can result in, and the ethical
conundra that result. Conjoined twins, parasitic twins. See you
avoided the rest. They're uncomfortable thoughts, aren't they, but
it's not science fiction. It's been done with other mammals, and I
wouldn't be at all surprised if there aren't a handful of chimeric
humans out there.
I greatly respect your position (and didn't quote all of it). In
fact, I wish that more pro-choicers in America where as honest as
you are.
I think the debate in the States has become *so* polarised that it's
difficult to explore nuance. As Dan's caricature of the "pro-choice"
position showed.
Your honesty above is, in all reality, a breath of fresh
air.
Appreciate that.
A few quibbles, however.
First, I don't know that 12-16 weeks is "well before the time it can
feel pain." It seems like there is at least some evidence that
pain can be felt as early as 8 weeks... http://tinyurl.com/jd5zu
Yes, and there's other evidence that suggests it's much later. I'll
dig it out later if I remember (kind of busy with a wedding in just
over 5 weeks). Anyway, I think we'd agree that if one *had* to abort,
the earlier the better. We just disagree on whether the choice should
be there.
You also mention that you like the 12-16 week time limit because it
is "long enough that the mother has time to act." Out of
curiosity, why is this a consideration?
Because not everyone believes the same things I do. And because the
law allows for abortions, so we must both allow them without
prohibitive restriction, but regulate them carefully. There's no good
answer, only a compromise that does least harm to the adult we
already have.
If technology were ever to
advance to the point that even a 4 week-old fetus could be kept
alive, would that change your position?
Yes - I'd want abortion to be replaced with transfer of the foetus to
the artificial womb. In fact, if technology progressed so far, I
suspect many people would avoid the risk of pregnancy and childbirth
altogether.
Or would you still define
humanity as beginning "after enough time for a mother to act?"
That's not how I define it.
Finally, do you believe that a third trimester abortion of a healthy
baby is the killing of a human being? Of one at 22 weeks?
Yes, and probably. I believe that while we're not fully human until
we achieve self-awareness (actually at around 4 years old, which does
leave me room to suggest "aborting 3 year olds" when I'm angry with
people who throw friendly, heated, but respectful debates like this
one out the window and resort to smears or insults...) a newborn baby
is a human being, and the last trimester or so is close enough that
it makes no odds. At the other end, a zygote isn't. Nor is a
blastocyst. 4 weeks, still no. But it's then on we go fuzzy. There's
no line. Just a grey area. Like with colours. We know a blue, and we
know a red. But in between, well, there are purples. Bluish ones, or
reddish ones. But no point we can say "That's not blue, it's red".
That's how I, and many others, see human development. There's no
magic line. Even conception isn't a line. Is it the point where the
sperm fuses with the ovum? Or the point where the two nuclei fuse? Or
the point where the first cell fission can be observed to be
starting? Or when that first division is complete?
Anyway, I don't expect any of us will change anyone's mind, 'cause
ultimately, while we're talking science here, where one regards one
becomes a full member of the human race is a philosophical or
religious viewpoint.
Charlie
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
