avi@hogpd.UUCP (Avi E. Gross - ABI at Lincroft NJ) (07/22/83)
Liz states that she has a friend who tells her that their "medical" text books say that life begins at conception. I may not be quoting her accurately, but the gist of the argument seems to be that medical people believe in elements of the so-called "pro-life" movement. I have read many medical books in my time. I fail to remember any that said that you were "human" with all the usual rights at the moment of conception. All they imply, is that something called "life" can be said to have started. This does not imply that the developing fetus can live on its own. All they are saying is that there is an inherent difference between the genetic content of the 46 chromosomes it contains and those of the mother. It is a "new" life form. I do not like the way Liz, and others, try to twist things to suit their needs. Medicine does not define anything of a legal nature. People use this information to pass laws -- often in an arbitrary manner. She asks how come other physicians don't come forward and propose some other time "when life begins" -- other than conception. Maybe that is because the qusetion is silly. Is one week any different than two months? Recently we have been able to transplant a developing embryo into a host mother at a young age. Does this prove that the fetus was "viable" because it could live without its "natural" mother. Extrapolating this relatively simple technology, we should soon be able to just take the sperm and egg cells and raise the kids in the laboratory with NO human intervention. Will it be a crime to accidentally spill the contents of a two-minute old test-tube? On a related issue, how does Liz (and anyone else who wants to jump in) deal with simple asexual organisms that just split into two (or more) pieces - every now and then. When a yeast cell becomes two yeast cells, which one is the "old" one and which is the "born-again" one? I claim that both cells are simulataneously millions of years old - and brand new. Each one gets a random combination of chromosomes. Some were just made by replication of the old ones, and some are the original copies. Each yeast may contain a few molecules that once were in an organism living thousands of years ago. The question of "new life" is not sensible in this context. In the case of "human" biology (how are we so different from other animals?), I believe that whatever we call "life" does not start at any time. If I have a child, it will not get a new life. It will just continue the life I (and an appropriate woman) pass on to it - just like I inherited it from my parents in an unbroken chain that goes back through many species. In other words, life transcends conception. I don't view your life as being any different than mine - or any other animals. NOTE: I am not talking about inteligence or consciousness. Those are separate issues. I am merely trying to say that I deeply resent it when people use "SCIENCE" to support religion by interpreting things to fit their aims. The term "CREATION science" makes me laugh. Why not call it creation-mathematics or creation-physics or something equally meaningless. Maybe the term "science" should be trademarked. I am reminded of Hitlers declaration of the threat to Germany caused by "Jewish Science". Now we seem to have a "Christian" version of science. I don't BELIEVE in either concept. This note is not an attempt at changing any opinions. I just want to state that I will continue to laugh at people who try to use my own weapons against me in their arguments. Avi Gross P.S. As usual, there is a healthy dose of sarcasm in my comments. Notice, I did not post any views on abortion and similar topics. I was just flaming on techniques.