Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:47:30 -0800 (PST) From: Santosh Helekar <chimbel...@yahoo.com>
>From a neurophysiological standpoint a rudimentary brain begins functioning at >10 weeks of gestation, as measured by the initiation of electrical activity. >Cerebral cortical activity begins at 22 weeks of gestation. Medical abortion is a legal medical procedure important for saving the life of the mother in some medical conditions. It should never be criminalized. The debate about personhood has no bearing on this issue, just as it has no bearing on the issue of killing of military and civilian lives in war, judicial executions and killing in self-defense. It is a pragmatic philosophy informed by scientific facts and real life problems in the medical field and in society. It is also a political philosophy driven by the principle that in a secular democracy the beliefs of any particular religion should not be imposed on all people through government action or by the will of the majority. Otherwise cow slaughter would be criminalized in India. Mario observes: This particular discussion started with an essay by Averthanus in which he writes about three Irish women who had gone to Britain to get abortions because abortions are banned in Ireland. As with many extremists, the fact that they could legally kill their unborn babies was not good enough for them. According to Averthanus, they then proceeded to file a "suit before the European Court of Human Rights challenging the Irish Constitution, which protects all human life from the moment of conception. Their contention is that the lack of abortion facilities in Ireland breaches the human rights of women to terminate their pregnancies." Thus, the title of this thread. Apparently, Ireland was assured that before joining the European Union that their national sovereignty and constitution would not be trampled by their membership in the EU. So, we'll see what happens to this case where KILLING the unborn within them is now being claimed, not as a medical or social right under certain constraints, but as a broader human right, which hitherto has been a right to LIVE in peace and security. Santosh's primary concern seems to be that laws may be passed that impede the use of EMBRYONIC stem cells in medical research which he, as a medical research scientist, believes will benefit society if and when cures for human illnesses and physical conditions are developed. His secondary concern seems to be that abortions are sometimes necessary to save the life of the mother. His third concern seems to be that the opposition to abortion is purely religious and that in secular democracies the beliefs of the religious should not prevail over the opinions of others. Thus we see the two ends of the spectrum of those who advocate for abortion. At one end you have Santosh's pragmatic concerns based on secular philosophy, political ideology and medical research. At the other end we see the advocacy of abortion as a human right, i.e. at the whim of the mother. I can at least see Santosh's point of view. However, I cannot see abortion as a human right in the conventional sense since the rights of unborn humans are missing from the equation. I don't think Santosh disagrees that a naturally conceived embryo under normal circumstances evolves into a fetus and eventually into a human being with full legal personhood by any definition. In addition, whereas EMBRYONIC stem cell research doesn't seem to have produced the same spectacular results as adult stem cell research, there are thousands of embryos left unused as an unintended consequence of artificial fertilization procedures, which provides the anti-abortionists with a dilemma they would rather not face. What do we do with these? Store them until hell freezes over or use them, i.e. kill them for embryonic stem cell research. The only other alternative is to kill them period, which makes no sense at all. This is an impass, not for the Catholic Church as an institution, which opposes any artificial means of reproduction, but for everyone else who believes that an embryo is a human life. The status quo is that these are being used for embryonic stem cell research. The secularists have taken care of their interests by making up definitions based on brain activity, consciousness, will, etc. which Santosh has described quite vividly. While these traits are not to be found in an embryo, they evolve as the fetus develops, and well before a live birth. These definitions have found legal acceptance in all secular countries and I wouldn't worry too much about any significant regression in the status quo. On the other hand, as we are seeing in Europe, there are pro-abortionists pushing the envelope outward. For some reason these pro-abortionists cannot bring themselves to be as passionate about developing better organized systems for adoption in the case of unwanted pregnancies. For the rest of us who care about these things, human life has to begin at conception, i.e. with the embryo, because a) none of the other stuff will ever happen without an embryo, and b) genetic science can now distinguish with 100% certainty between a human embryo, the embryo of some other species, and a non-living thing.
