Posted on 11/18/2011 4:16:38 PM PST by wagglebee
When one considers the ethics of manipulation, the question of whether we ought to, or whether we may manipulate an organism or entity depends on the answer to the first and most fundamental question:
In the fields of obstetrical medicine and reproductive medicine the ethical debates have raged for four decades. Enlightened discourse between opposing parties must assume good motives by all involved, and then go about asking the essential questions, following where the truth of science and reason lead.
Many claim that life begins at some point distant from fertilization, always beyond the point at which they propose some manipulation (abortion, embryonic stem cell culturing, etc…). There are always a list of biological functions that are given to define when human life begins: Cognitive capacity, etc.
The simple biological truth of the matter is that the Cell Theory states that all cells arise from pre-existing cells. There is no blackout period between sperm and egg uniting, and then the emergence of ‘life’ at some point distant.
The Carnegie stages of human development indicate that human development begins in the zygotic stage. Then there is the assertion of developmental biologist and leading textbook author in the field, Scott Gilbert. In his text, Gilbert takes us through the life cycle of a dog. His text, Developmental Biology, is arguably the leading text in the field. According to Gilbert:
“Traditional ways of classifying catalog animals according to their adult structure. But, as J. T. Bonner (1965) pointed out, this is a very artificial method, because what we consider an individual is usually just a brief slice of its life cycle. When we consider a dog, for instance, we usually picture an adult. But the dog is a “dog” from the moment of fertilization of a dog egg by a dog sperm. It remains a dog even as a senescent dying hound. Therefore, the dog is actually the entire life cycle of the animal, from fertilization through death.”
First, note how he sets the word dog off in quotes at one point, to communicate the very essence of the organism:
But the dog is a “dog” from the fertilization of a dog egg by a dog sperm…
The same may be said of all vertebrates, including cats, giraffes, chimpanzees, and humans. Substituting the word human for dog in Gilbert’s analysis gets to the heart of the matter. We are human for our entire life cycle. We are whole and complete in form and function at every stage of our development, for that given developmental stage. The prepubescent child is fully human, even though they lack the capacity to execute all human functions, such as abstract reasoning, or reproduction.
In the same way, the early embryo is alive and fully human, though it has not yet executed all human organismal functions.
Photo via: embryology.med.unsw.edu.au
Genetically speaking, there is a time before which an individual of a sexually reproducing species does not exist and after which it does, be it ever so humble. From that moment to the moment of its dissolution it passes through definable stages of development and degeneration. Here are some that apply to us: zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn, infant, toddler, child, pre-adolescent, young adult, mature adult, old-aged. Upon this continuum of development place an asterisk where “it” becomes “human” and perhaps another where its humanity ceases as far as the empirical world is concerned. Many would place the asterisks at fertilization and death (death defined as the irreversible disruption of the continuum). I do. It is this creature appearing at fertilization and disappearing at death that is human.
Except for metabolic functioning like cell division. Or initially; the almost miraculous combining of two cells which individually are incapable of mitosis into one cell that is.
Can an egg or the sperm be dead? Are they not alive? Does not abortion end life, whereas the combination of an egg and wiggly sperm CONTINUE/create a new unique life???
Too bad “LifeNews” and the compromised NRTL “leaders” they shill for act politically as if this isn’t so.
“Anyone who has ever taken 8th grade biology already knew this.” This is why I was so astonished at the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling. I was 17 at the time and thought it was obviously wrong scientifically and I expected the American people to rise up and demand a Constitutional amendment to protect human life from conception. That didn’t happen.
Regarding the humanity of a fertilized egg, I ask: 1) Is it alive? 2) What species is it? If it is alive and human, killing it is murder. QED
See my essay I wrote in 1977 about abortion on my Free Republic home page.
So, is this your way of saying that it's "above your pay grade"?
A sin, yes, but should these killings be unlawful? I’m inclined to say yes because sanctioned abortion (not to mention subsidized abortion) is probably not good for the moral health of the society.
Why don't you say that abortion should be "safe and legal and rare" because that certainly seems to be your attitude.
“is this your way of saying that it’s “above your pay grade?”
We can beat this subject to death like it’s been beaten a thousand times before.
The last few posts are my conclusions at this time. It’s above my pay grade in that I’m not qualified tell others what their conclusions should be.
Abortion should be medically safe. Our government should not make it totally illegal and should not subsidize it. It should be rare.
Next question, please.
53 MILLION babies have been murdered since 1973, there are currently over 3500 babies being murdered EVERY DAY, an INNOCENT AMERICAN BABY IS MURDERED EVERY 24 SECONDS. Given all that, and seeing that FR is a pro-life forum, I am fully prepared to "beat this subject to death" and I don't give a damn what the naysayers think about it.
The last few posts are my conclusions at this time. It’s above my pay grade in that I’m not qualified tell others what their conclusions should be.
So, I assume you are "personally opposed" to abortion, but don't want to tell others not to kill babies?
Abortion should be medically safe. Our government should not make it totally illegal and should not subsidize it. It should be rare.
You sound just like every leftist in America.
Next question, please.
Okay, why aren't you on DU? You clearly have much more in common with them.
Thanks for the ping!
Abortion should be medically safe ... It should be rare.Why rare? If it is safe and legal, why not widespread and profitable? Maybe even in your local drugstores and retail malls. If it is safe and legal, why not?
Abortion is never medically safe. It's not even intended to be. It is intended to leave at least one dead person.
Our government should not make it totally illegal and should not subsidize it. It should be rare.
It's already illegal, and it should never happen in this country under the color of law.
The Supreme Law of the Land:
"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.""No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Emphasis mine, but the words are directly from frposty.
Oy. No medical procedure is medically safe. EVERYTHING has risks to it.
Our government should not make it totally illegal and should not subsidize it. It should be rare.
What other forms of murder and torture do you suggest our government endorse then?
Our government should not make it totally illegal and should not subsidize it. It should be rare.
And that is EXACTLY the kind of argument that got us into this abortion mess we have today, some 53 million butcherings later.
I saw a study not long ago - a month or so that the heart beats far sooner than they thought. Less than a month, so you've got a living, heart beating individual in your belly before you even knew they existed.
That tells me something.
Disagree, God makes physics and Biology. Knew a woman who would be the perfect mother, barren. Too many of those unfit druggie types who are able to reproduce.
Perhaps you think God "breathes" a life into a baby when it's born?
Every woman is capable of being the mother God wants her to be.
Knew a woman who would be the perfect mother, barren. Too many of those unfit druggie types who are able to reproduce.
Hebrews 11:11 By faith even Sarah herself received ability to conceive, even beyond the proper time of life, since she considered Him faithful who had promised. (God chooses barren, or not barren, based on His will, not our will, or our wisdom, or our abilities, or desires)
Perhaps you think God "breathes" a life into a baby when it's born?
Luke 1:41 When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
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.
