S
strngrnrth
Guest
Every look we get at the people in the womb tells us surprising things about what they know and what they experience. No observation has ever set the apparent development of the embryo back; each observation tells us they grow more complex, more sensitive, earlier than we had thought possible. It isn’t over yet. We learned that they have working senses at three months; then at two; then at one; then at a few weeks. We learned that they have heartbeats at one month; then at two weeks; then at eleven days; then at ten days; what next? We learned that they understand a few familiar words at birth; then at six months; what next? We’re not through seeing what they can do. Suppose babies turn out to be conscious a few mere days after fertilization – and that the morning-after pill might even be destroying some aware senses, stopping a feeling human child. It’s not impossible at all. When they’re the size of a ping pong ball, they rub their eyes, yawn and swim laps. Every time the resolution of the pictures gets better, every time the readings on the EEG and EKG get more sensitive, the children appear more developed, indicating that the tools of observation are simple and obscure, rather than the subject.
In any case, it’s undisputed biology: a child is the species of the parents at every point in life, and life begins in sexually reproduced organisms at chemical fertilization, when a chemical reaction occurs between the DNA of one parent and the DNA of the other parent. Regardless of the child’s level of consciousness, the child is the human living son or daughter of two human parents at fertilization. To intentionally cause the death of a living human being is homicide. If legal protection from homicide depends on age, location or abilities, the lines that society can draw are arbitrary and will be moved over time. Already there are signs of the loss of the right to life immediately after birth in the USA, and the loss of the right to life while unconscious due to illness and permanent injury. These are moved lines, which we were told not long ago were fixed. In a generation, according to the current trend, we will face the loss of the right to live for thee first year after birth and following any disabling long-term injury, even if it is not apparently permanent. In another, we may find life is legally protected only between age three and retirement or long-term illness, whichever comes first. In one more, perhaps during the lifetime of some of us here, what will we have left? Perhaps only the employed will be legally protected. I make a well-grounded slippery-slope argument, because we are observably slipping down the slope right now, so its slipperiness is verified.
The only events that biologically frame life are fertilization and total cellular death. Within thise bounds, a person is a living person who must be protected to avoid the drift toward the middle that can finally cut us all off from legal protection from death.
In any case, it’s undisputed biology: a child is the species of the parents at every point in life, and life begins in sexually reproduced organisms at chemical fertilization, when a chemical reaction occurs between the DNA of one parent and the DNA of the other parent. Regardless of the child’s level of consciousness, the child is the human living son or daughter of two human parents at fertilization. To intentionally cause the death of a living human being is homicide. If legal protection from homicide depends on age, location or abilities, the lines that society can draw are arbitrary and will be moved over time. Already there are signs of the loss of the right to life immediately after birth in the USA, and the loss of the right to life while unconscious due to illness and permanent injury. These are moved lines, which we were told not long ago were fixed. In a generation, according to the current trend, we will face the loss of the right to live for thee first year after birth and following any disabling long-term injury, even if it is not apparently permanent. In another, we may find life is legally protected only between age three and retirement or long-term illness, whichever comes first. In one more, perhaps during the lifetime of some of us here, what will we have left? Perhaps only the employed will be legally protected. I make a well-grounded slippery-slope argument, because we are observably slipping down the slope right now, so its slipperiness is verified.
The only events that biologically frame life are fertilization and total cellular death. Within thise bounds, a person is a living person who must be protected to avoid the drift toward the middle that can finally cut us all off from legal protection from death.