On 26/07/2006, at 11:43 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There's something else to being human, and
it's to do with our minds not our bodies.
Conjoined twins, parasitic twins. See you
avoided the rest. They're uncomfortable thoughts, aren't they,
but it's not science fiction.
Conjoined twins are simply a special case of identical twins.
And a chimera? One soul, or two?
I think the debate in the States has become *so* polarised that
it's difficult to explore nuance. As Dan's caricature of the "pro-
choice" position showed.
I must have missed that, but I find it hard to believe that Dan was
more polarized on this issue than I.
I didn't say he was *more* polarized, just that he showed how the
debate has become so polarized etc.
Here's his quote:
"The pro-choice axiom is that, before birth, there are no human
rights, and after birth a full set."
Which is clearly bollocks. There's a huge range of views across the
spectrum, and this pigeon-holing into "pro-choice" or "pro-embryo" or
whatever tag one chooses is not actually useful. Actually talking
through differing viewpoints and trying to understand why other
people think as they do, even if you disagree with them, can only help.
First, I don't know that 12-16 weeks is "well before the time
it can
feel pain." It seems like there is at least some evidence that
pain can be felt as early as 8 weeks... http://tinyurl.com/jd5zu
Yes, and there's other evidence that suggests it's much later.
I'll dig it out later if I remember (kind of busy with a wedding
in just over 5 weeks).
The point remains, I don't think you can say with confidence that 12-
16 weeks is before it can feel pain.
From a BMJ review paper, Vol 332, 15 April 2006, pp 909 - 912:
"The period 23-25 weeks’ gestation is also the time at which the
peripheral free nerve endings and their projection sites within the
spinal cord reach full maturity. By 26 weeks’ gestation the
characteristic layers of the thalamus and cortex are visible, with
obvious similarities to the adult brain and it has recently been
shown that noxious stimulation can evoke haemodynamic changes in the
somatosensory cortex of premature babies from a gestational age of 25
weeks. Although the system is clearly immature and much development
is still to
occur, good evidence exists that the biological system necessary for
pain is intact and functional from around 26 weeks’ gestation."
You also mention that you like the 12-16 week time limit because
it
is "long enough that the mother has time to act." Out of
curiosity, why is this a consideration?
Because not everyone believes the same things I do. And because
the law allows for abortions, so we must both allow them without
prohibitive restriction, but regulate them carefully. There's no
good answer, only a compromise that does least harm to the adult
we already have.
The law once allowed slavery too, and once not everyone believed the
same things that you do. This logic does not appear to be
consistent to me.
And everything you do is consistent? It may not be consistent, but
very little is. It works for me.
a newborn baby
is a human being, and the last trimester or so is close enough
that it makes no odds. At the other end, a zygote isn't. Nor is a
blastocyst. 4 weeks, still no. But it's then on we go fuzzy.
There's no line. Just a grey area.
Kind of makes it weird for someone to be in a limbo area where one
might or might not have a right to life... kind of like being
Schroedinger's cat.....
So why is that so hard to deal with? It's like the age of consent -
it varies from country to country, but it's always a compromise
between protecting the mentally or physically immature while not
unduly restricting the mature and ready. Artificial lines to make the
best of messy analogue situations.
Seems like an awkward way to be basing human rights if you ask me.
It's all awkward.
Personally, I would want to err on the side of safety - if the
entity *might* be human, then give it rights, rather than make the
mistake of denying it rights, only to realize it later.
See, you're just talking a different language. It's not even a rights
question, really. It's a question of when does a developing life stop
being the sole responsibility of the mother to choose, and when it
becomes a ward of the state.
Could leave
us or our descendants with a lot of mental anguish in the future....
We'll get over it. We got over slavery (some of us), we got over
female emancipation (some of us), we got over religious autocracy
(some of us)...
Can I ask another question - what about IVF? Would you ban IVF too?
Charlie
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
