Quote:
Quote by: sevendogs  Philosophical and scientifically speaking, life line is never disrupted. Only life generates life. |
Regarding life, it's debatable whether a person who is catastrophically injured and has only motor functions for brain activity is considered alive. Though they may contribute a sperm or egg. They breath and can survive by suppliments through a needle, but is that living?
A baby at birth has some memories of life in the womb. So that is living.
An embryo that has no upper level functions is the same as an adult vegetable. They have no upper level mental functions. They are akin to insects, perhaps not even that developed.
The potential is there to grow, but at the time of abortion, those functions have not yet formed, so they do not exist.
Genetic intelligence exists however. Information passed on by the parents may contribute to future society. Would we want that information passed on?
As for "Does life exist at conception", the potential for life exists. As stated earlier, long ago when we were still part of our Sun, the potential for life existed then. We only exist now because of a narrow thread of consequences that lead up to our existence.
Personally, I've acquired some knowledge about genetic intelligence. Information passed from one generation to the next based upon genetics. There are certain combinations of genes that are being passed on that I would like to see terminated: Sloth, ADHD, and excessive hormonal imbalances (rage, irrational behavior, manic emotions, ...). I would like to see Genetic Dating become available. I'm for diversity, but the effect from drugs and alcohol are troubling from a genetic lineage point of view. Children are born whose children will be afflicted with the same emotional retardations.
Many people value the people now being concieved, but have absolutely no conscience related to the babies born 5 generations from now.
Do you realize that only 2 consecutive 105 year old people were needed to connect 1776 and the birth of our country to the present? They didn't have indoor plumbing and broad leafs were a valued asset; to both of those people.
So what is being discussed here? Is this a discussion for enlightening the human mind, is it an attempt to bind and restrict the evolution of humanity, or possibly some other more sinister attempt at propogating the corruption of the minds of people with irrational relationships.
Can you provide a rational concept if it is based upon ficticious and reasonably disputable evidence? No, so why do people keep trying!
People try to force their beliefs upon other people because they do not want to be wrong. Even at the expense of being right.
If life is reasonably disputable, then no law can reasonably be inacted to govern that disputable life.
I would say that any person willing to pay for the raising of the conceived embryo, should be allowed to transfer the embryo to a laboratory or other woman willing to carry the child, rather than letting the aborted embryo terminate.
Any person not willing to bear the cost of raising the embryo should not have any say as to the final termination of the embryo. As cited repeatedly elsewhere, if the embryo is an individual, then it is separate from the host; and must be treated accordingly.
So if a group apposes abortion, then they have the option of raising the embryo themselves. If they do not, they are as complicit as any other person involved with the abortion.