iano, msg 63 writes:
Keeping to the issue of abortion.
But there is no difference between the determination of {human life} or of {personhood} at one end or the other. Ethically they are the same issue: determining the line between {human person} and {alive flesh}. Terri Schiavo was {alive flesh} but there was no {human person} left.
There is no point at which the elements that form a fetus are not alive: the sperm is alive, the unfertilized egg is alive, but we do not call them {human persons}; the nutrients consumed by the mother are transformed and carried by the living cells from mother to {zygote\blastocyst\embryo\fetus\child}, they don't suddenly "switch on" in the developing cell material where the only contribution of {the conception} is the material in one (1) cell that is short lived; the material that makes up the duplicating portions of dividing cells comes {from\through} the mother, not the original cell, and old cell material becomes degraded, replaced and flushed out of the system. There are more sloughed off dead and
living cells in the amniotic fluid surrounding a late term fetus than the number needed to form the first
(20 day) stages of {zygote\blastocyst\embryo} growth.
FROM:
Filtration and recirculation of early amniotic fluid. Evaluation of cell cultures from 100 diagnostic cases. -- Entrez PubMed (click) The purpose of this study was to evaluate the culture quality of amniotic fluid cells from early pregnancy, obtained by a new filter technique. ... One hundred samples were obtained from ongoing pregnancies at 11-14 weeks of gestation (mean 12.8 weeks). ... The cultures from the first flushing of the filter system yielded 2.6 times more colonies and in total 4.2 times more colonies were found in the three cultures grown from each filter sample when compared with the control cultures. Moreover, the filter cultures showed significantly more colonies with mitoses.
No one claims that these discarded
living cells free floating in the amniotic fluid have any special value, yet they are not significantly different from the zygote formed by the joining of a sperm and an egg: they are just {alive flesh}.
If no one knows how to define what makes an individual (other than subjectively) and even if they did know but they are not in a position to know whether a foetus is one,
One can argue that a human life isn't a person until they have reached the age of 10 and have become (capable of being) self-sufficient.
I don't believe that there ever will be an objective measure that will satisfy everyone, because the {subjective range} of opinion is greater than the {objective evidence} would allow. We are forced, not to make
{a} subjective decision, but to allow for {a wide range of} subjective decisions.
Some people will chose on the basis of {alive flesh} and some will chose on the basis of {personhood}, but the people having the right to make that choice are the ones that contributed the genetic material: it is their {alive flesh}.
... then they must err on the side of safety.
Who's safety? Which safety?
When it becomes an issue of life for the mother to continue the pregnancy many people chose to err on the side of safety, and save the life of the mother. To me there is no difference whether the life of the mother is life-endangered or not, the choice is to err on the side of safety and go with the known quantity, the mother, as opposed to the unknown quantity, that
may become a human life (or not). Especially when the probability is that the result is (or not) -- less than 2/3rds of zygotes make it to the 12th week, naturally.
One could argue that this also means that in the event of a disagreement between the male and female contributor, that the decision to terminate would "err on the side of safety" in terms of bringing a child into a caring wanting loving nurturing environment.
And one could argue that we don't appear to be in any danger of running out of replacement humans anytime soon, but rather we would appear to be in danger of over-running their ecosystem to the point of causing population {boom\crash} cycles in many places, and thus any measure that reduces such system stress would "err on the side of safety" eh?
It comes down to {quantity} versus {quality} ... which means it comes down to {personhood}.
Once human rights are established ...
When the child is born and breathes a free breath and opens wondering eyes. This is traditional in most cultures. There are some cultures that hold off until the first birthday (the child is un-named until then), to ensure the child lives that long (but this is less of a problem in modern medical-available societies).
One could also argue that one does not have rights without the responsibilities that go with them. When a child commits a murder but is not deemed to be responsible for it due to age, immaturity and development, are not their rights also with-held?
... given that they cannot be objectively denied they must be presumed of the foetus: on the basis of innocent until proven guilty as it were ...
Why? Why presume this for one group of {alive flesh} and not for another? By this reasoning no infected organ or cancerous growth should be removed, for who knows what it might become. By this reasoning no brain dead (ex-)person should be denied endless life-support.
You make a logical leap here that is not based on the evidence. A brainless mass of {alive flesh} that may (2:1 likelyhood) spontaneously abort (miscarry) on it's own has nothing to be guilty or innocent of. It lives or dies outside of {human cognition of actions}
And given what is at stake - life - ...
Human life or all life? That unending string of {alive flesh} stretches back to the LUCA event where all life on this planet are joined at the naval of life. There is no point where that life has been extended to humans that is not also extended to bacteria and long lived Bristle-cone pine trees. There is no broken link.
My position is that there is a distinct (ethically validated) line, as currently defined by the {UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF DEATH ACT}, inside which is {human life} and outside which is {alive flesh}.
And that within the boundary of {human life} there is {personhood} and {non-personhood}, and that the boundary between those factions is determined by {personal-belief\family\faith\culture\society} mixed in different proportions and variations in different people.
And that it is in this area that we are (again) forced - "not to make
{a} subjective decision, but to allow for {a wide range of} subjective decisions" - to allow for the diversity of people and their personal rights to make decisions about their lives ...
... and about their "successors and assigns" - as parents currently have the legal right to make life decisions about their born living young children, even to the point of withholding off-the-shelf medical treatment that could easily keep them alive, based on
their {personal-belief\family\faith\culture\society} mix.
Enjoy.
ps -- I will be adding portions of this to my topic to cover the living cells in the amniotic fluid argument. Thanks.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel
AAmerican
.Zen
[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
™ Version 4.2