Hi Buz, we've had this discussion before.
The father and the mother are the one's doing the sex thing; the primary function being propagating the species.
Absolutely, completely false. The primary function is mutually enjoying sex with a loved mate, as responsible adults. This includes using birth control for those that do not want to have children as a result.
If this were not the case then the market for birth control would be very insignificant: it isn't. I do not know anyone who has not employed birth control.
LOL, RAZD. Defining the term person is another ongoing debate topic between ideological counterparts. It's been ongoing for decades. Not all philosophers and scientists agree.
But without an understanding of that term, the we are talking at cross purposes.
If it is not a human life, then it is not murder.
If it is not a person, then it is not murder.
This is the heart of the debate, yes?
So let's start with the lesser criteria: when does life qualify as being human life?
First, we can look at the legal definition of when human life ceases - we already have a culturally accepted legal definition of human death, where it is legally permissible to discontinue life support of a person in a coma and declining health - from
Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion Message 1:
Legal Death
The first legal standard of death is very clear -- from
the Legal Definition of Death (click):
UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF DEATH ACT
1. [Determination of Death.] An individual who has sustained either
(1) irreversible cessation of circulator and respiratory functions, or
(2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, are dead.
A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.
That's the legal nuts and bolts of it: either failure of {heart\lung} system or total brain failure. Any person with either of these failures is universally and legally considered to be dead.
The word "irreversible" is used to refer to common medical practical limits to resuscitation.
The people involved in the decision to terminate life support for people where this applies are the immediate family in consultation with the doctors, once the doctors have determined that the legal conditions apply.
From this we can determine a definition of human life as the point where the conditions for human death do not apply. Again, from
Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion Message 1:
Legal Life
When considering this in terms of beginning rather than end, the same conditions should apply. Where the irreversible failure of either system qualified for death, the irreversible instigation of both is logically necessary for life. Likewise "all functions" would become "any functions" of the brain. This could be reworded in a format similar to the death act above as follows:
UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF LIFE
1. [Determination of Life.] An individual who has sustained either:
(1) irreversible instigation of circulator and respiratory functions, and
(2) irreversible instigation of any functions of the (entire) brain, including the brain stem, is alive.
A determination of life should be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.
Note that this is derived logically from the legal definition of {death} to the form of the legal definition of {NOT death = life}, and thus it is legally applicable and morally, culturally as acceptable as the universal definition of death.
Usually, I believe, the heart and circulatory system develop first, followed by rudimentary activity in the brain stem, then upper brain areas, followed last by the development of the respiratory systems. Typically the limit to saving premature babies depends on the level of development of the lungs -- before a certain point the lungs just cannot be made to function. This point would have to be determined by professionals in each case, based on the actual level of development the fetus has reached.
Once the stage has been reached where there is a functioning heart and circulatory system, a functioning brain, and functioning lungs - or at least the point where these systems would operate autonomously if life support were removed - we have human life, according to the culturally acceptable conditions used to determine human death.
I think everyone would agree that this stage is not reached until late, in the third trimester, of pregnancy.
Buz to ringo writes:
Message 103: The place to start is with those of mutual consent. The legality of exemption for others could be on a case by case basis.
Why not decide each and every pregnancy on a case by case basis?
Obviously if the immediate family wants to have a child it is nobody's business to interfere with that decision.
If the immediate family has reasons for wanting to terminate a pregnancy then, just as they have the right to decide to terminate life support for a terminally dying child, just as they each have the right to decide to remove a tumor to save the life of the other, they should have the right to decide to terminate life support for a group of cells that have not reached the stage of qualifying as
human life as long as the legal conditions were met.
Use this method to determine your "case by case basis" and then make it the rule rather than the exception.
Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
™ Version 4.2
