Pancreas
Vyemm Raider
- 1,135
- 3,831
Aristotle's claim for the 40 and 90 day cut off points was based on his assumption that the embryos prior to that point were imbued only with animal and plant spirits and not human ones. In several thousand years, what we know about neuroscience may be seen in the same quaint light. And just to be clear, most aborted fetuses have begun developing brains, nervous systems and hearts.
I mention the unique properties of the embryonic DNA simply to illustrate that the human that would have developed from that early organism, is never going to be seen, ever. If you can tell me exactly all of the implications of not letting that person exist, then great, we don't need to consider this matter further. The fact that you can't means that it is a very serious decision to undertake. This process of selection defines the world we are creating in regards to the absence or presence of these individuals.
I have however, said nothing about trying to save these instances of humanity, I am speaking specifically to the intended disruption of this process. To interfere and save all potential embryos from their mother's inefficient wombs would have the exact same moral implications as terminating them. We are manipulating the naturally evolved process to meet our definition of what is right or allowed. Using fertility drugs, or in some cases over using them, can result in danger to the mother and her children. Every action we take in spite of nature has consequences.
Also, you are causing the ideas of human life and the protection of that life to be fused at all points. Before technology we lived at the whim of nature. We lived and died to forces beyond our control. Technology is allowing us to wrest that control and create artificial scenarios. We can place people on life support for extended periods of time. We then have to consider the implications of allowing people to live in such a state, far beyond the time their bodies would have failed. If we don't consider our actions we can end up with horrific situations that would not have occurred otherwise.
You are saying that since all human life must be protected at all costs, the only way abortions can occur is if we define the early developmental stages of humanity as not human or not "alive".
I am saying that human life begins at conception and never stops developing until we die. That if we determine certain stages of that development to be terminated permissibly, we should define those stages clearly. And if we do, we must accept that we terminated a human life, regardless of where in that development cycle it happened to occur.
I mention the unique properties of the embryonic DNA simply to illustrate that the human that would have developed from that early organism, is never going to be seen, ever. If you can tell me exactly all of the implications of not letting that person exist, then great, we don't need to consider this matter further. The fact that you can't means that it is a very serious decision to undertake. This process of selection defines the world we are creating in regards to the absence or presence of these individuals.
I have however, said nothing about trying to save these instances of humanity, I am speaking specifically to the intended disruption of this process. To interfere and save all potential embryos from their mother's inefficient wombs would have the exact same moral implications as terminating them. We are manipulating the naturally evolved process to meet our definition of what is right or allowed. Using fertility drugs, or in some cases over using them, can result in danger to the mother and her children. Every action we take in spite of nature has consequences.
Also, you are causing the ideas of human life and the protection of that life to be fused at all points. Before technology we lived at the whim of nature. We lived and died to forces beyond our control. Technology is allowing us to wrest that control and create artificial scenarios. We can place people on life support for extended periods of time. We then have to consider the implications of allowing people to live in such a state, far beyond the time their bodies would have failed. If we don't consider our actions we can end up with horrific situations that would not have occurred otherwise.
You are saying that since all human life must be protected at all costs, the only way abortions can occur is if we define the early developmental stages of humanity as not human or not "alive".
I am saying that human life begins at conception and never stops developing until we die. That if we determine certain stages of that development to be terminated permissibly, we should define those stages clearly. And if we do, we must accept that we terminated a human life, regardless of where in that development cycle it happened to occur.
