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
My husband used to say, “A fertilized egg is either a tomato or a person - which is it?” Only one answer.
Thank you for posting this!!
That’s easy enough for you to say but I’m becoming more and more convinced that Democrats are not human.
Many are in denial of this basic science
Only God can “breathe” a soul into a body, therefore I contend that there is no such thing as an “unwanted pregnancy”, no matter what the circumstances, for man cannot coax or force God to do that which He is unwilling to do. Only He decides when a womb is fertile and when it is barren.
From the movie “Come What May”
http://www.youtube.com/v/RndNVjZnQ6g&hl=en&fs=1
Straightforward explanation. It will get us nowhere. People can go through extraordinary mental contortions to justify their positions - no matter how egregious.
But I’ll throw in a Pro-Life ping anyway!
“That “nonviable tissue mass” crap is something the people hating/abortion loving commie ‘RATS came up with.”
For years now, we’ve been beyond the debate about whether or not it is a human life. They openly concede it is, and still adamantly support the right to destroy it.
Bald eagle eggs have more protection than a human egg; destroying them is a crime.
Great point and right on the money.
Great movie. We own that one. Will never win an Oscar or Emmy or whatever but the message is wonderful!
Thanks; it is just one of the bizarre contradictions of the “abortion debate”.
I had a “professor” in the early 1990s that supported abortion, and used an example of waking up with another person lying on a gurney next to you, connected to you with tubes, etc. for life support (their organs weren’t functioning). She then tried to make the case that nobody should be forced to endure that, completely removing any personal responsibility from the issue and absolutely conceding that it involved a human life. She was basically making the argument of the Nazis in their destruction of retarded people, and in pursuit of the same goal: a master (white) race. The Axis lost WWII; the Nazis won.
Wow! She sounds like a real loon. She’s lucky that her mother didn’t mind having her tubes connected to the nutty professor.
She was a loon; I mention her name any time the school calls for fundraising. Even back then, the only support I had when I initially engaged in raising a contrary viewpoint was from Hindus and Muslims in the class.
It must really depress that wench that the numbers of both of those groups have increased substantially in NJ since then.
The full DNA structure occurs when the cells meet. Without this moment in time no case on DNA could stand, thus life begins at that moment (conception), God the spark of life when the first cell forms.
I’m entitled to reach my own conclusion about when a life begins and I conclude that a single fertilized cell is alive only in the sense that it is able add more cells to itself. Much beyond a few cells, though (I can’t say exactly where) it becomes an itty bitty human being whose killing is a sin.
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.
Then former Justice of the Supreme Court Harry Blackmun and others obviously were unqualified for their positions, having flunked 8th grade biology...
the infowarrior
Likewise known, and blatantly ignored by the "court" that decided Roe v Wade. That decision rates right 'up there' with Dred Scott, and for many of the same reasons. It flies in the face of basic humanity, science, and religion, it likewise legitimizes something which any fully rational person could only describe as evil to its core...
the infowarrior
What other definition of biological life is there than metabolic functioning? You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.
I had not thought of that, but you are absolutely right. Thanks.
“You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts”
There are no concrete facts upon which to base a conclusion about the start of life.
Upon further thought, I believe that the act of conception is sacred. Were one of my children to get pregnant I would not advise an abortion unless it was apparent that it would avert a larger disaster.
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.