—The comparison between that and an epithelial cell is not valid. Left on its own, an epithelial cell doesn’t produce an adult human, ever.—
Yet, we know now that, with the right chemical manipulation, it could. Just as a zygote requires chemical manipulation to become a fetus.
I don’t see the relevance of the “left on its own” part. What difference does something’s natural progression make to its moral status unless it has the capacity to have an interest in that particular progression. That seems to be the genetic fallacy with a dash of a belief in naturalistic fate.
An epithelial cell and a zygote both lack the capacity to have interests in becoming human beings.
Forget about liability. If a fertilized egg were human, it would be the obligation of society to remove it from the uterus and grow it outside to minimize the risk of miscarriage as soon as the technology becomes available, just as we use heroic measures to save the lives of new-born babies.
Carl Sagan suggested that a fetus be considered human when there were detectable brain waves. This makes the most sense to me. After all, people whose brains are destroyed are considered legally dead, even if their hearts can be kept beating.
ah, but this implies a redefinition of “criminal neglect”.
anything less than what is considered perfect-pregnant-woman-behavior might be considered “criminal neglect”. just like you’re liable when the neighbor kid trespasses and breaks his leg on your trampoline, you could be guilty of manslaughter for smoking, drinking, falling down, catching a virus, poor diet, bad driving, any number of silly things.
Life is one thing and conscious life is something else. An embryo doesn’t have a nervous system for the first few days so I would question whether there is consciousness there.
I think we know so little about consciousness on a scientific basis that scientists aren’t really all that much more qualified than anyone else in the area. They could probably make more informed speculations, but those probably would be quite variable among a group of scientists.
No, it does not. I merely said that criminal neglect would be one basis for declaring a miscarriage to be criminal. This does NOT, in and of itself, necessitate a redefinition of this term. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
ah, perhaps i should’ve been more clear. i was not claiming that your point necessitates a redifinition, rather the point of the discussion.
if carried to its logical end, claiming that a newly fertilized egg has all the rights of a human being would indeed necessitate reexamination (at least) of where “criminal neglect” is applicable. the examples i gave previously are some that might be included in the new set of things that constitute neglect. some might be a bit exaggerated, but where do we draw the line?
the point remains that we could call a miscarriage the result of criminal neglect in many cases we would currently consider absurd.
first of all, it is rather more than “the first few days” that a fertilized egg lacks a human nervous system.
secondly, scientists are not the only ones who have trouble with consciousness. as someone with a degree in cognitive science, i can say with confidence that no one really knows what consciousness even is, or that anyone is actually conscious. there is certainly no way for me to prove that anyone other than me is conscious.
finally, supposing we know what consciousness is, and that humans are conscious, this fact alone does not make a life worth or not worth having. there are many unconscious people in the world whom you could kill and be convicted of murder, and there are many conscious people you could kill and not be. consciousness alone does not make something human, nor does it make a life inherently valuable.
just wanted to make those points, and hopefully clear up things a bit.
Well, I wasn’t taking about the temporary unconsciousness of a formerly conscious and fully functioning human being. The OP asked about “life” not “human life” and asked whether or not scientists would be the people to decide when “life” begins.
The creationist organization The Institute for Creation Research makes a big point of the the difference between “conscious” and “not conscious” life in arguing that the eating plants, which are alive, destroys life but isn’t really “death” because the plants aren’t “conscious.” Their argument is that plant life is merely a collection of replicating cells and not “life” that is protected by the prohibition of killing. And I was only pointing out that at the beginning an embryo (blastocyst?) is “merely a collection of replicating cells.”
My point was that scientists aren’t really any more competent than others to define “life” in the terms the OP was talking about, i.e. when it is acceptable to terminate a human pregnancy.
I don’t intend to get into a debate about abortion because I will not have to decide such a question about myself or my wife. Everyone else, as far as I am concerned is free to make the choice that fits their circumstances.
We don’t. I was quoting the ICR. I don’t know that anyone has ever checked for the presence of super or sub-audible sounds, or electromagnetic radiation or any other of the effects we know about when a tree is cut down or a weed is pulled out of the ground by the roots.
This tends to be my point-of-view on the matter too. Scientists can certainly contribute facts to the debate regarding the development of the fetus at various points. But, I don’t think “When does human life begin?” is ultimately a well-defined scientific question. It is a philosophical / moral one.
Although I am strongly pro-choice, I tend to agree with a friend of mine that one can’t really criticize someone who is “pro-life” because they so strongly believe that abortion is murder (even if you disagree with them). However, it seems that few “pro-lifers” want to just impose this particular feature of their morality on the rest of us. Most of them also want to enforce things about sex education in schools and lots of other things which, to my mind, gives away the fact that they really just want to impose their whole moral code on us. If you simply believe so strongly that abortion is murder then you should favor sex education programs that reduce the incidence of abortion.
Before discussing when life begins, please, please read Carl Sagan’s words : http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml
Someone mentioned it above, but a clear distinction between the start of life, the start of Human life, and the difference between potential and actual human life is critical.
Without a human brain, you have no human, no matter how much it may look like one.