(February 24, 2012 at 12:30 am)mavis Wrote: First there must be metabolism—a series of chemical reactions in support of life.Secondly there must be growth. Third there must be differentiation—different parts of the organism or even different organelles of a single cell must develop to perform specific functions. The fourth criteria is movement. This can be movement of the entire organism or movement of parts of the organism. The fifth criteria is responsiveness. This is not the same as consciousness. It means that the organism can detect changes in its environment and respond to these changes. Finally a living being must undergo reproduction. This can be the reproduction of the entire organism or of specific cells.Clearly, an embryo at conception meets all the objective scientific criteria of life.
As do all the other cells in human body. These cells too are alive and at that level, they are the same as an embryo at conception.
(February 24, 2012 at 12:30 am)mavis Wrote: While the mother supports these functions with her womb, her body does not direct these functions. The embryo accomplishes these life functions independently. The only question to ask then is what kind of life is the embryo at conception. The only answer is human life. The genetic code is in place to define this life as fully human.
This is a fallacy of equivocation. If you take a lump of cells from your body (or consider an organ), it too is alive by objective scientific criterion and it too has genetic code in place that defines it as human. So, in that sense, they too are fully human. By this standard, anyone having a haircut is guilty of murder.
There is a distinction between biological human life (any cell that happens to have human DNA) and metaphysical human life (life of a human being). It is the latter which is the basis of human rights and an embryo does not qualify for those.
(February 24, 2012 at 12:30 am)mavis Wrote: So now the question is does this vulnerable human life deserve protection. To declare any class of humans as unworthy of protection makes all humans vulnerable. It gives the powerful authority to destroy the weak.
Since an embryo is not a human, the question of if it deserves protection is moot. But, for this part of the argument, let's assume that an embryo is a sentient human being from the moment of conception to the birth.
The first part of your argument is that if a human is weak or vulnerable, he/she automatically deserves protection. The obvious corollary is that if a human is strong, then he/she has a responsibility to protect the weak. I reject this premise absolutely. Being worthy is not a granted quality, it is an earned one. If the weak individual encroaches upon the life of the strong, then the strong has every right to protect itself. If the weak exists independently of the strong, then the only responsibility the strong has is not to encroach upon the weak.
The second part of your argument is the following premise-conclusion pair:
Premise: A particular human (weak in this case) is unworthy of protection
Conclusion: Another human (strong) has the authority to destroy it.
That is an invalid conclusion, i.e. it does not follow from the premise. For example, suppose I were to discover a pot of gold which I did nothing to earn. A rational argument could be made that I do not deserve it. That does not mean that any other person automatically has the authority to take it away from me (unless it actually belonged to them).
Applying these argument to a "sentient embryo", we see that the only actions it is capable of are those of a parasite. It consumes a lot of resources that would otherwise be used to sustain the body and causes a host of health problems. The only conceivable reason a woman would be expected to continue supporting it is her desire to be a mother. Barring that desire, there is no rational reason as to why she shouldn't opt to get it out of her body.
Even if the embryo is one of the "weak humans", that is no justification to protect its encroachment on another person's body. Even if the mother does not have the right to terminate the life, she still has the right to have her body divested of it, even if the natural consequence of that is the embryo's death.
Coming back to the actual nature of pregnancy, it can be divided into three parts. The first from conception to the point where the fetus shows brain-activity. Next from that point to the time when it is viable. And third from viability to natural birth.
The woman has the right to opt out of the pregnancy throughout all three parts. In the first part, she has the option of both terminating the pregnancy as well as terminating the fetus. In the second part, she can only choose to have the baby out of her body. Whether it survives the outside world or not depends upon the level of medical care it is given. The third part would be the same except for the fact that the chances of baby's survival then would be much higher.
