Post #7,045
8/28/01 11:18:12 PM
|
What is life?
If you say that a zygote is not a human, then I suppose you must operate on the assumption that at some point in time that this zygote is somehow transformed into human life. The scientific evidence would rule out that a zygote has much, if any, potential to develop into anything other than what is coded in the DNA. The process of combining DNA results in a growth process that, if allowed to go to completion, will result in some old fart some 75 odd years down the road.
Genetically speaking, everything that you are now, was coded into that zygote. From the moment of conception, you receive almost no new genetic information. Which would seem to indicate that you were once in a state such that you were a zygote. Your senses and general ability to perceive were not fully formed, but all the information was there in that zygote.
Now the assumption in any debate would have to be that human life has innate value. The taking of life, for whatever reason, is something that goes against our sense of right and wrong, whether that be grounded in religious or personal conviction, theological dogma or Darwinian systems. It's a point that must be stressed by both sides in order to make a connection at any level.
The only question left to resolve at that point is what constitutes human life. Can we measure when human life begins? Is it the moment of conception, the moment of sensation? The moment of awareness? the moment of mechanical freedom? Any side you choose in this debate, you are inherently choosing the moment that you suspect represents that magical, mysterious moment where the inertia of the process that began with a sexual act (or in some test tube) results in a human life.
The consequence of holding human life to be the most valuable component for this species, means that you better consider the matter with a certain weight of seriousness. Normally, one would want to err on the side of caution in case one's judgement was somehow flawed, given the fact that we still understand precious little about the universe in which we find ourself.
Anyhow, the real problem with the debate has nothing to do with the proposition of when life begins. Instead, it devolves down to a power confrontation as both sides try to legislate a solution to this vexing problem. I think legislation is fine, one way or the other, as laws do not measure the morality of an issue so much as they measure the popularity and/or power of the parties involved.
I personally don't find legislating this particular brand of morality to be feasible or desirable. But then, I also think that this does not relieve the individual from truly examining the consequences of their actions, no matter whether it's legal or not.
|
Post #7,047
8/28/01 11:29:55 PM
|
Re: What is life?
But, don't forget, that zygote needs a truly nurturing environment to develop. Otherwise, it becomes food for other life. So it's not that simple.
Alex
Life is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel.
-- Anne Frank
|
Post #7,049
8/28/01 11:41:32 PM
|
One measurement
Brain activity.
If there is no brain activity, there is no life. One can argue that is as true of a 45-year old accident vidtim vegetable kept alive on life support as it is with something floating inside a woman's womb.
Personally, I find most children under the age of 6 to be monsters anyway. But then I'm a crusty old unmarried man.
French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
|
Post #7,056
8/29/01 3:52:00 AM
|
Full agreement with last \ufffd Such sanity unlikely in Murica.
|
Post #7,075
8/29/01 10:23:44 AM
|
Loaded words won't bring consensus.
Hi Chris, I agree with your last sentence - that legislation on this issue isn't desirable. What it comes down to for me is: that adults must be able to (and history has shown, will no matter what the law says) control their ability to reproduce. A woman shouldn't be compelled to have a child because she became pregnant. What is life?
If you say that a zygote is not a human, then I suppose you must operate on the assumption that at some point in time that this zygote is somehow transformed into human life."Life" and "human" are loaded words, as everyone involved with the debate knows. An unfertilized egg is alive - it will die if not cared for by the body. A sperm cell is alive - it will die if not cared for by the body. They, like a fertilized egg, have the potential for being precursors of a child. You may say that few would argue that an unfertilized egg or a sperm cell is "human life". But, there's religious support for just such an argument in Catholic doctrine. E.g.: [link|http://www.catholic.com/ANSWERS/tracts/contracp.htm|[link|http://www.catholic.com/ANSWERS/tracts/contracp.htm|http://www.catholic...contracp.htm]] Contraception
In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin: On Human Life), which reemphasized the Church's constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use artificial birth control or contraception for the purpose of preventing new life.
Artificial birth control is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal), the Pill, and all other methods of artificial contraception.
The Historic Christian teaching
Most people don't realize that up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church's teaching and officially condemned contraception as sinful. At its 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Church capitulated to growing social pressure and announced that henceforth contraception would be allowed in some circumstances. That small crack quickly widened until the Anglican Church completely caved in on this issue, allowing contraception across the board. Since that time, all other Protestant denominations have followed suit, abandoning the historic Christian teaching against contraception and giving in to the permissive mores of secular society.
Today the Catholic Church alone proclaims the historic Christian position on contraception. (Fortunately, though, an increasing number of individual Protestants are realizing that contraception is contrary to the gospel and totally opposed to constant Christian teaching, and they are embracing the Catholic position). Evidence that contraception is in conflict with God's laws comes from a variety of sources:
[...] If you (the generic you) argue that abortion is wrong, then how can you accept that contraception is OK? Aren't you interfering with the development of a human life? And if you accept the Catholic argument, shouldn't you also agree that every woman should always be pregnant so that the God's commandment to "be fruitful and multiply" be explicitly fulfilled? I think such a train of argument is sophistry. At its base, the abortion debate has broken into two sides. One claims to base its arguments on religion, protection of the helpless, etc. The other claims to base its arguments on personal freedom, protection from coercion, etc. Without a common framework there's going to be no consensus and each side will be convinced they're right with little hope of convincing the other. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #7,118
8/29/01 4:46:20 PM
|
A small correction
Without entering into the merits, contraception is seen as wrong is not because unfertilized eggs and sperm are considered human beings, but because what is considered a fundamental aspect of the sexual act (the openness to creating life in love--tightly linked to the "in His image male and female created He them" stuff) is being purposely destroyed. It is similar to eating food for the taste and vomiting it up to avoid the nutrition--also considered morally wrong.
Giovanni
|
Post #7,129
8/29/01 5:13:57 PM
|
Thanks.
|
Post #7,139
8/29/01 6:53:27 PM
|
Actually, it's the story of Onan
I expect someone will correct any mistakes in this telling[1], but basicaly the Catholic doctrine against contraception and masturbation are both based on the Biblical story of [link|http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=onanism|Onan]. He was chastised for "spilling his seed on the ground." This, ever since about the 14th century, has been interpreted to be critical of "wasting" the potential life in the sperm.
During all the study leading up to the Vatican Council in 1976, the Catholic Church had everyone from Cardinals on down to secular scholars studying the Catechism to determine the biblical, theological or other basis for all doctrine. It turned out that the original point of the story of Onan had nothing to do with the "wasting" of the seed.
In the society that Onan lived in, the custom after the death of a married man with no heirs was for his brother to take the widow as a wife to keep the property in the family. Otherwise, whoever married the woman would take all her holdings. Onan, who was already married (betrothed? can't remember which) didn't want to but was pressured. At the last minute he backed out, metaphorically and otherwise, thereby "spilling his seed ..."
So the moral was an exhortaion to put your family's continued wealth ahead of your own desires. Which, barring the particulars of the story, isn't all that bad a moral. But in the 14th century, the pope created the alternate moral as a way of increasing membership in the church.
Fast forward to 1976, and the pope is in an awkward position. He can either go along with an interpretaion that he knows is contrary to the original intent, or he can proclaim that every pope for the past five centuries has perpetuated a lie. Considering that one of the teachings of the Catholic Church is the infallibility of the pope, this second option would call into question any pronouncement the church might make. Under intense pressure from the Cardinals, he left the interpretation in the Catechism unchanged.
This is just one of the many examples I heard in a radio interview with the author of a book about the subject.
[1] Working from memory, so please excuse any minor flaws.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
|
Post #7,138
8/29/01 6:21:59 PM
|
Looks like mandatory sex to me
Frankly, I can't see anything in Paul VI's argument that makes abstaning from sex any more licit than any other form of birth control.
White guys in suits know best
- Pat McCurdy
|
