At the very moment that a spermatazoa penetrates an eggs membrane and fertilizes the egg the two combine their DNA materials.
At this point the egg and sperm combination are a living being independant of the donors DNA, with its very own original and unique DNA pattern. The pattern is set for the rest of its life and will not change.
It is a living being, an individual completely seperate from any other, which will continue to grow without guidance from any other source.
It is even possible at this point to remove it from the mother and grow it in a different host, or even in a laboratory, outside of the womb.
Unfortunatley it is totally dependant on the mother or some other, to provide nourishment and safety.
The very first structures to be formed are the brain and nervous system, leading me to believe that the embryo is capable of rudimentary thought after the very first cell division.
The dilemma for some people is what kind of thought or mental processes are required to call something alive.
Others are more concerned with physical attributes of appearance and function.
If we were to consider the intelligence or independance of a person to determine their status as living, or possessing a soul, this would affect their very worth or value to society and the corresponding right to live and other human rights.
Not only for a fetus, though, but also for adults. A scale made to determine the status of a being as either dead or alive, living or not possessing or being a soul, would have to be universal, and universally applied, for it to be anything but an arbitrarily applied tool for labeling something as unworthy of life, for the satisfaction of the killers desires, and not an independant standard.
So what if we consider the application of this to adults?
For example, if we were to set a minimum IQ for a fetus to be considered alive, what if a man were fully grown, but could not surpass that mark?
Would that person be considered to be not human, not living or otherwise have no human rights, either to life or freedom?
Could that man be enslaved or killed without his master or killer being guilty of a crime?
Similarly in a physical capacity, does a fetuses dependance on its mother or inability to act in its own interests mean it is not alive?
Well, what of another fully grown man, disabled so that he can not move or talk, completely dependant on others to feed him, bathe him and care for his every physical need.
Is this man not human or alive?
Can we take such a man, like Stephen Hawking, and say that he has no human rights, do whatever we wish including killing him, with no fear of the consequences or retribution?
I think that it is the same situation whether for a fetus, an embryo, child or adult. We can not make a judgement of their worth based on mental capacity or physical attributes. Every living man is equal, regardless of their IQ, physical strength or any other factor.
We can not hold ourselves up as superior to any other for any reason, including race, gender, nationality or age.
For you in America, does your constitution not guarantee these very things?
Is there not a section which says you can not discriminate against someone on the basis of their age?
Even thousands of years ago the writers of the Bible discussed this very topic, and in it the law given to the Isrealites through the prophets said that if a man struck a woman who was pregnant, and the baby actually came out of her dead, that the man was guilty of murder.
It did not make exception for the age of the unborn child.
Even in international courts, the UN tries to impose these very tenets of basic human rights on every nation in the world, saying that everyone, everywhere, should have freedom to live regardless of ethnicity, gender or age.
Armies from all over the world fight people who disagree, trade sanctions and embargos are meplaced to try and prevent violations of human rights, people are brought before international courts to prsoecute them for violations against the human rights of others.
So why is it allowed, in almost every developed nation, and the undeveloped, to kill someone on the basis of their age?
It is because it is convenient. It is because people want to do whatever they want, whatever feels good.
This includes premarital sex, extra-marital affairs, polygamy and incest, rape and fornication.
What they don't want is to be responsible for these actions, to take care of a child, which act could interfere with their fun.
The major problem is that the world leaders are also included amongst those serving their own desires. The ones making the laws regarding abortion are also the ones getting abortions for their mistresses and wives of fornication.
Abortion is allowed because immoral people are allowed to lead us in our moral development.
My own thoughts are that a fetus becomes a living soul at the moment of fertilization.
At this point it is growing, reproducing cells, its brain is developing and is functional, controlling independantly the fetuses heart and other body functions, regulation of hormone production, thyroid function and every other aspect of it's own body.
---------------------------------------------
Old School, I think it is reasonable, even common sense, to incorporate the known facts, that a zygote will grow and develop into a human being, whereas the cancerous tissue is a disease, which will not grow into a fully developed and independant life form, but will kill the host organism and then itself die, and is not a reproductive process but a destructive one.
Also, the fact that the fetus would die in minutes in certain surroundings does not mean it is already lifeless, any more than the fact that if you were removed from the atmospehere of the earth you would die within minutes does not mean you are not now living.
Also the fact that 40% of zygotes die does not mean the ones which live also died or are not living, any more than the fact that all people, everywhere, eventualy die, does not mean the ones now living are also dead or worthless.
Comments
Xanderman -- by your definition, any mutant cell in anyone's body, be it benign or cancerous, is a separate "ensouled" entity deserving of civil rights. After all, those mutant cells have different DNA structures than the rest of my body. And those cells are just as "alive" as a zygote. Should we not treat cancer because the cancer cells are a "life"?
Furthermore, just because nervous system cells are the first to differentiate, that does not mean that the nervous system is functional in any way that resembles a viable human.
It is useful to remember that human beings are not fully formed at conception. We start out as a *cell*, not even visible to the human eye. If it were exposed to the elements, it would be dead within minutes. Also, I've read that about 40% of fertilized zygotes spontaneously abort. Is God so capricious that he kills 40% of those made in His image before they even develop the most rudimentary physical characteristics?
by Old School on May 12th, 2007
Old school, that is called a strawman tactic. I did not say anywhere in the answer that cancerous cells are "ensouled" or deserving of human rights, did I? Saying that I did and then attacking that argument is a method of deception.
by anonymous on May 12th, 2007
A simialr straw man argument would be, old school, you say that a zygote is nothing more than a cancerous cell or disease, so does that mean we should abort every pregnacny to stop this plague?
Or how about this, old school, you say that God causes 40% of all zygotes to spontaneously abort, so does that mean we are a cancerous infection on the planet which God is trying to eliminate? Surely it would be pleasing to God if we helped out by aborting all fetuses.
by anonymous on May 12th, 2007
Xanderman --- I don't claim to know God's wishes.
.
However, you asserted a scientifically observable phenomenon, the moment of conception, and assigned philosophical meaning to it. You then went on to assert further scientific facts to support your philosophical position.
My argument method is called reductio ad absurdem. I illustrated that if we accept your philosophical stance with respect to all cells that meet your scientific criteria, not just zygotes, it leads to absurd conclusions.
I further noted that if we accept your idea of the 'sacredness' of all zygotes, one has to explain the oddity that 40% of them are not 'sacred enough' for God to let them gestate.
I admit these are tough questions and if God has answered them, he has done so ambiguously.
by Old School on May 12th, 2007
The notion that God has answered ambiguously is ridiculous. Did you not see the response to this in my answer? The Bible says if you kill an unborn baby it is murder, plain and simple,straight forward, no room for interpretation.
The only way it could be ambiguous is if it is intentionally ignored.
by anonymous on May 12th, 2007
You state that acceptance of my criteria to define whether something is living would lead to absurd conclusions, such as what? That living things are living? Like cancer cells are living? Well I got news for you, they are living cells, so are amoeba and flies and zygotes. You just don't want the zygotes included because you don't like the philosophical implications and it would limit your alternatives. My scientific observations are correct, and accurate, not based on philosophy either, but when I talk about philosophical idea it is dealing with the implications when someone kills a living thing, not an attempt to define whether or not it is living.
by anonymous on May 12th, 2007
X-man--- I see we agree that zygotes, amoebas, and cells (including mutant and cancer cells) are all living. Where we disagree is whether or not zygotes get their own special category. All of the cells we have agreed are living have all the necessary genetic material to make a whole organism. To assert that zygotes have souls whereas amoebas or cancer cells do not is a *RELIGIOUS* assertion, not a scientific one.
If you appeal to the fact that zygotes are viable and will (6 out of 10 times) grow into a human fetus, but other cells don't, your claim rests entirely on the state of current technology. Given time, I think we
will see viable zygotes created from organ cells.
As for God's unambiguous claim about killing unborn babies, He Himself is killing 4 unborn babies for every 6 He allows into the world. How does the Bible say we should punish God for the billions of unborn He has killed?
by Old School on May 12th, 2007
Who says it is God killing them? Will you ignore the millions of cocaine and crack addicted mothers, heroin addicts, alcohol abuse, teen and pre teen pregnancies? What about environmental contaminants created by man, PCPs and solvents, prescription medications and industrial wastes which affect the reproductive system? Were those God, or man? We also disagree on the definition of a "living soul", which, in the Bible is used to describe not just men, but also animals, and means not an "immortal" soul, but a life, a living thing.
by anonymous on May 12th, 2007