5th October 2005, 4:10 PM
It is a tough question, but it is worth considering. As I've said before, and as I have yet to actually get around, even when out of the body, a human infant can't survive on it's own at all. There's not even a chance. It still depends, if not directly on the birth mother, on SOME care being given to it, by circumstance or a willing life form. It can't survive on it's own for more than a few hours. Further, it's mind is a blank slate at that stage, with little more than the basic framework, the ability to recognize a human face from a not-face, and the desire to track moving objects. In fact, an infant's mind is more blank than a number of other mammals, and certainly insects. It eventually becomes our strength of adaptiveness, but at first it means that while some animals can actually walk around and some can even fend for themselves right after hatching, an infant is just a crying mass of flailing limbs.
Further, there is plenty of evidence for evolution, but the whole "the stages of development in the womb" thing isn't. Those stages are the actual needed processes. The DNA that would let us look like a bird is long gone. The reason so many animals share the same stages of development is because of our connection to them, sure, but we aren't wastefully turning INTO those other animals in our attempt to eventually become human. Something like that, if that's all it was, would greatly endanger our species as a wasted effort and would have been weeded out long ago anyway.
However, there is one more problem here. While at first this may seem a cogent argument, it falls apart, much like current physics models, at the moment of creation. I find a hard time saying "okay, at the moment of birth it is wrong to kill it, but before it's just fine" for the reasons I stated above. But, those arguments alone suggest that every sperm is sacred and every egg should be maintained. I really have a hard time saying "well, when it is COMPLETE human DNA, it has a right to life, but only half and it can die in a torrent of blood washing it out of the body". Though, the body doesn't seem to have a problem making that distinction :D.
So, at what point must we consider a human being as having a right to it's own life? I believe it should at least go back to birth, because I just can't stomach the idea of intelligence testing of kids until at some point a computer screen says "Congratulations! You are a human being today with a humanity rating of 88%!". However, I can't logically find a way to exclude the fetal stages of growth as those are also undeveloped humans. The only real way I've found so far that makes any sense is this. "The life is in the brain." When the brain shows up, that's when it's wrong to kill it, regardless of personal choices considering that. Thing is, that's a hard thing to nail down.
Anyway, it is a VERY hot topic. Logic has never been a good tool for saying what is and isn't wrong, but it can help us decide what does and does not fit a given model of morality.
So what I'm saying is, I don't think humanity in general has come up with a logical, detailed, and precise definition of what constitutes the sanctity of sentient life as a moral. When we nail that down, then we can use logic to get our answer.
In the mean time, I'll add this. In the case where one considers the life of the infant as valid as that of the mother, what does a doctor do when their lives are in jeopardy and one can be saved only if another's life is taken? I've said this before, but really, that's just like asking a doctor how to make that same decision when the factor linking the patient's lives isn't biological but rather based on time and resources (as in, two patients with an equal chance to survive if work is done on them NOW, but the only one capable of doing that work can only work on one, and if that decision is made, the other one will die, because divided attention will mean both of the patient's deaths). I don't think something like that has a proper answer. I think that's just reality's way of saying sometimes people die.
Further, there is plenty of evidence for evolution, but the whole "the stages of development in the womb" thing isn't. Those stages are the actual needed processes. The DNA that would let us look like a bird is long gone. The reason so many animals share the same stages of development is because of our connection to them, sure, but we aren't wastefully turning INTO those other animals in our attempt to eventually become human. Something like that, if that's all it was, would greatly endanger our species as a wasted effort and would have been weeded out long ago anyway.
However, there is one more problem here. While at first this may seem a cogent argument, it falls apart, much like current physics models, at the moment of creation. I find a hard time saying "okay, at the moment of birth it is wrong to kill it, but before it's just fine" for the reasons I stated above. But, those arguments alone suggest that every sperm is sacred and every egg should be maintained. I really have a hard time saying "well, when it is COMPLETE human DNA, it has a right to life, but only half and it can die in a torrent of blood washing it out of the body". Though, the body doesn't seem to have a problem making that distinction :D.
So, at what point must we consider a human being as having a right to it's own life? I believe it should at least go back to birth, because I just can't stomach the idea of intelligence testing of kids until at some point a computer screen says "Congratulations! You are a human being today with a humanity rating of 88%!". However, I can't logically find a way to exclude the fetal stages of growth as those are also undeveloped humans. The only real way I've found so far that makes any sense is this. "The life is in the brain." When the brain shows up, that's when it's wrong to kill it, regardless of personal choices considering that. Thing is, that's a hard thing to nail down.
Anyway, it is a VERY hot topic. Logic has never been a good tool for saying what is and isn't wrong, but it can help us decide what does and does not fit a given model of morality.
So what I'm saying is, I don't think humanity in general has come up with a logical, detailed, and precise definition of what constitutes the sanctity of sentient life as a moral. When we nail that down, then we can use logic to get our answer.
In the mean time, I'll add this. In the case where one considers the life of the infant as valid as that of the mother, what does a doctor do when their lives are in jeopardy and one can be saved only if another's life is taken? I've said this before, but really, that's just like asking a doctor how to make that same decision when the factor linking the patient's lives isn't biological but rather based on time and resources (as in, two patients with an equal chance to survive if work is done on them NOW, but the only one capable of doing that work can only work on one, and if that decision is made, the other one will die, because divided attention will mean both of the patient's deaths). I don't think something like that has a proper answer. I think that's just reality's way of saying sometimes people die.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)