The Abortion Debate: a New Perspective
July 7th 2009 22:37
This is the post that marks my return to the political channel. In honor of that puny event, I would like to dedicate this post to a discussion of a subject that has baffled me for a long time- abortion.
Usually, the phrases "morality" and "rationality" don't go hand in hand. We have millions of movies where robots, the most rational of all sentient beings, go nuts because morals have no basis in reason. This perspective, of course, adds a tenuous weight to fundamentalist claims that, without faith, the world will sink into anarchy and depravity. But I digress.
The entire debate rests on the defenition of the term "human being". In this article, that is the term I will attempt to define.
We will begin prior to conception. At this point, we have two cells: the egg, and the sperm. neither can be considered human, except in the sense that they come from humans. They don't even have the proper number of chromosomes to be considered human. Clearly, we must move on.
When the two cells have joined, they have the proper number of chromosomes for a human cell; Unlike your other cells, however, this cell will become a human child, given enough time. Undoubtedly, this is a momentous step; This is where I part company with some of my religious colleagues. For them, life begins with conception, which, supposedly, is when the fetus gains a soul. To them, I shall assign a task: first, prove that the Bible, or any other religious text, is divinely inspired; Next, find the specific passage dealing with fetal soul aquisition, and send it to me. Believe me, you won't find me very hard to convince. I would love to believe in a god, and an afterlife. All you have to do is use a rational form of persuasion, or summon a miracle; If you can't do that, though, I must conclude that the fetus, at this stage, is no more human than any other cell; It doesn't even have a brain, at this point. Thus, like any other part of the human body, it can be ampuutated if it could cause harm to its host. Feel free to disagree; That's your right, after all. But for me, the defining line between of humanity must be placed elsewhere: with the aquisition of a mind. The mind, after all, is the characteristic that sets humans apart from the animals. To put it simply: when any being which, given time, would reach the point of sentience, acquires a mind, however basic, that organism must be considered the moral equivalent of an adult of the same species. Call it a moral law, or call it garbage; regardless, it's a new perspective.
Usually, the phrases "morality" and "rationality" don't go hand in hand. We have millions of movies where robots, the most rational of all sentient beings, go nuts because morals have no basis in reason. This perspective, of course, adds a tenuous weight to fundamentalist claims that, without faith, the world will sink into anarchy and depravity. But I digress.
The entire debate rests on the defenition of the term "human being". In this article, that is the term I will attempt to define.
We will begin prior to conception. At this point, we have two cells: the egg, and the sperm. neither can be considered human, except in the sense that they come from humans. They don't even have the proper number of chromosomes to be considered human. Clearly, we must move on.
When the two cells have joined, they have the proper number of chromosomes for a human cell; Unlike your other cells, however, this cell will become a human child, given enough time. Undoubtedly, this is a momentous step; This is where I part company with some of my religious colleagues. For them, life begins with conception, which, supposedly, is when the fetus gains a soul. To them, I shall assign a task: first, prove that the Bible, or any other religious text, is divinely inspired; Next, find the specific passage dealing with fetal soul aquisition, and send it to me. Believe me, you won't find me very hard to convince. I would love to believe in a god, and an afterlife. All you have to do is use a rational form of persuasion, or summon a miracle; If you can't do that, though, I must conclude that the fetus, at this stage, is no more human than any other cell; It doesn't even have a brain, at this point. Thus, like any other part of the human body, it can be ampuutated if it could cause harm to its host. Feel free to disagree; That's your right, after all. But for me, the defining line between of humanity must be placed elsewhere: with the aquisition of a mind. The mind, after all, is the characteristic that sets humans apart from the animals. To put it simply: when any being which, given time, would reach the point of sentience, acquires a mind, however basic, that organism must be considered the moral equivalent of an adult of the same species. Call it a moral law, or call it garbage; regardless, it's a new perspective.
| 47 |
| Vote |
