Subject: Re: The Sinner Returns.
Date: 10 Feb 1999 23:10:12 GMT
From: Chris Ho-Stuart <>
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

Troy Harris <> wrote:
> c) Medical science certainly does not support imputation of the soul
> at birth. Rather, it generally supports life as beginning late in the
> womb- hence, abortion in later stages is still illegal.
>   Positions such as you take merely gives them licence to murder.

This is false.

Scientifically speaking the definitions of life apply reasonably well.
Humans -- like many other living creatures -- have a continuous life
cycle which include two phases: haploid and diploid. Sperm and
unfertilized eggs are living, and they are the haploid phase of
our existence. After fertilization (specfically, meiosis) there is
the diploid phase of our existence. All phases are certainly alive;
there is no break from non-life to life in this cycle. This is essential
for a useful definition, since many organisms spend the vast majority
their life in a haploid phase.

Those appealing to science to identify a point in development between
fertilization and birth where the organism becomes alive are on
dangerous ground.

First, it is ignorant. There are all kinds of significant events
during this development, but NONE of them constitute a break between
living and non-living.

Second, it avoids genuine moral discussion. The scientific definitions
are not moral definitions; and we should not so elevate them. We should
certainly be informed by the science for what it can reveal -- but
science does not reveal what we *should* do.

Third, it trivializes a very difficult question, and avoids all other
dimensions of the problem -- which *are* relevant, because abortion is
a question for the wider society. If some folks feel that the only
significant question is whether or not the fetus is a living organism,
they still need to persuade others that this is a morally responsible
way to approach the issue.

Cheers -- Chris Ho-Stuart