| I voted 'other.' My specification: I don't know.
Better question: when is the earliest that a human life could begin?
For that, I would select brain birth at about 22 weeks. Before there is a functioning brain, there cannot be a human life. After brain birth? I don't know what's going on in that brain. It might be aware of something, it might be self aware, or such concepts may be meaningless to what is in that brain.
What should that mean for abortion? Well, first of all, it should mean that there should be a free right to choose abortion before brain birth. After brain birth, does a fetus have rights that should be respected? I would say that the benefit of the doubt could be given that it does. However, note that the mother is an undoubted human being with rights, and that an unborn fetus is inhabiting the mother's body, so there must be some balancing of rights, which I interpret as giving the greater benefit of the doubt to the mother. For example, if the mother's life is in danger due to the pregnancy, the mother should have the choice to either end the pregnancy or accept the danger. Likewise, if the mother's health is in danger. And guess what: Roe v Wade fits fairly well to the precepts I have discussed: states can impose greater restrictions on abortion in the third trimester (a little after 22 weeks gestational), but they must allow for exceptions where the mother's life or health is at risk.
Now as to the definition of life's beginning at 'conception,' I need to ask further: what do you mean by 'conception'? Is it fertilization of a human egg, or is it implantation of that egg? What could be the argument if favor of at fertilization? What I have heard is the argument that it is at that point that a unique human genome is formed, so a unique human being. The problem with that argument is that it is wrong: much can happen after fertilization. One thing is that the zygote divides into two or more zygotes, producing identical twins or multuplets. Another is that an accident in replication of the genetic structure can result in the creation of two different genomes that result in two different types of cells: a mosaic, as happens in about one in fifty cases of Down’s Syndrome. More commonly in Down’s Syndrome, the accident in replication is replicated in all of the developing cells. A much-less-common occurrence is that two or more zygotes can merge, creating a chimera, a being with two populations of cells derived from two different zygotes. In sum, it is not true that a person’s genetic makeup is created at fertilization.
Further, as with the Down’s Syndrome case, there is more to what fetus develops than what is in the original genome. Most occurrences in development do not change the genome (as with a mosaic), but many nevertheless have profound effects on the fetus. This is why pregnant women are warned to be careful of their diets. Thus, the fetus is more than the product of its genome, it is also the product of its development.
Finally, however, the real question is whether we as humans are more than the sum of our biology. I argue that having a functioning brain, and what happens in that brain, has much to do with who we are as human persons. |