Posted on 05/20/2002 7:25:01 PM PDT by AnAmericanMother
Various factors, chemical and otherwise, increase and decrease the likelihood of twinning. Suppose a technologist has two vials of liquid, one marked "heads" which substantially increases the likelihood of twinning, and one marked "tails" which substantially decreases the likelihood. There is a zygote in a petri dish in front of her, and she's going to flip a coin to decide which vial to add to the dish.
Does the zygote constitute one person or two?
If a technologist takes an zygote and alters it genetically, correcting a gene disorder that would have rendered it non-viable, was that life created at fertilization, or was it created when the defect was corrected? Okay ... I'll concede that my previous analogy wasn't all that good and just give a straight answer to this question. That life was created at fertilization. What the technologist in your hypothetical did had no effect whatsoever on when the life was created.
So you are stating that a zygote which is defective in such a way that it cannot possibly develop into a birthable human being [other than by having its genome artificially corrected] is nonetheless a life?
Let me ask you this ... when, in your opinion, does life start?
Following implantation, though I am insufficiently versed in the applicable biology to nail it down precisely. Essentially, from my understanding of early prenatal development--and correct me if I'm wrong--the amniotic sac develops first, followed by the placenta and umbilical cord; the baby then develops within the amniotic sac while receiving nutrition from the placenta via the umbilical cord.
Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that while development of the amniotic sac begins almost immediately with fertilization, the placenta cannot develop until implantation (since that's when it's established which part of the amniotic sac will be in contact with the uterine wall). The umbilical cord likewise cannot develop until there exists a placenta to which it can attach. Since the developing baby will float inside the amniotic sac with no attachment to it other than the umbilical cord, I can't see how development of the baby would begin before at least the basic parts of the "scaffolding" were complete.
What would be the expected effect of stoning an adultress do death be, with regard to any unborn child she might be carrying? Since people back then didn't wait through endless years of appeals for capital cases, and since there is nothing to suggest that society should wait before putting an adultress to death, I think it's pretty clear that any unborn child she happened to be carrying would die too [and given the nature of her crime, the likelihood of her carrying such a child would be significant].
As to the fact that society benefits by denying cuckolds reproductive success, that is reading a bit beyond what's written, but reading the Law of Moses as a whole, it is clear that it is intended to protect the right of any man to know the identify of his offspring, unless he by his own actions forfeits that right (which the Law of Moses would permit him to do, though Proverbs would regard such actions as foolish). If it seems sexist that only men's rights are protected, consider that women don't need such protection for their rights since biology already provides for that [a women who gives birth to a child will have no doubt that it is hers].
Examine Leviticus and you will notice that there is a definite assymetry in many of the laws dealing with sex. For a man to have sex with another man's wife is a crime punishable by death, and yet for an unmarried woman to have sex with a married man is not a crime [though Proverbs quite clearly derides such activity as very unwise]. The reason [or at least the most logical reason I can see] is that in the latter case even if the illicit union produces offspring the married woman will nonetheless have no confusion about whether the child is hers. By contrast, in the former case, the woman's husband would have no way of knowing whether or not a child of the unfaithful wife was his.
Regardless of the reasons for why God wrote the Law of Moses as he did, I think it is pretty clear that (1) allowing an adultress to give birth could quite easily cause her husband's family to be torn apart in disputes over inheritance; (2) stoning the adultress to death before she gives birth would prvent such disruption; (3) there is no sign that the death of any unborn child the adultress might be carrying should be avoided. From these facts, it would seem logical to infer that part of the 'reason' for putting an adultress to death is to ensure that any unborn child she may be carrying does not live to threaten her husband's estate. Perhaps you would make a different inferrence?
Absolutely!
Incidentally, I was successful in getting her into a different school this year. It is also a Christian school, but NOT Episcopal (good heavens, how embarrassing that is to say for a cradle Episcopalian from back when the church HAD moral standards) and has much more rigorous intellectual standards. Also better moral standards among the students, and I don't think those two things are necessarily unrelated. Thank goodness they admitted her - the competition was fierce! She is in her third week and loving it (although it's a lot more hard work.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.