> I don't think we're going to find any peer-reviewed source that
> says zygotes equal human beings.
Actually you will -- but it also mixes it up with personhood -- i.e.
conflates science and philosophy.
-----
One of the ethical issues (mis)informed by "genomic metaphysics" is
the question of when a human being becomes a person equipped with
basic human rights. Most of us would agree that a newborn baby has
basic human rights, whereas a sperm does not. So when does personhood
originate? For most of those opposed to abortion, embryo research, and
the like, the obvious answer is that personhood originates when an egg
is fertilized by a sperm. This conclusion is initially compelling,
because it is at fertilization that the zygote with a diploid genome
arises from the fusion of two gametes with separate and distinct
genomes. The new diploid genome coincides with the emergence of a new
individual organism and contains the genetic program that will direct
the development of that organism.
-----
"Is the Genome the Secular Equivalent of the Soul?" -- by Alex Mauron,
Science Magazine, 02/02/2001
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5505/831
I have not previously cited this article because it is a
philosophical/political article of the type that initially promised
NOT to cite (on the philosophical/political question, it militates
against, not for, the notion of zygote as "person," so once some
pro-choicers get past the hurdle of acknowledging that zygotes are
human beings, they may find it useful), rather than a straight
scientific piece. It is, however, authored by a molecular biologist,
and it does appear in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
> But now enter a whole new view proposed by Paul Ireland and Mary
> Dolan. (Mary, Paul may have thought of it first. But I did not
> understand Paul's reference to a Tape Worm until I read your
> recent post. Paul, you thought of this a long time ago, right?)
> Considering this new perspective, we may not have to do any of
> the above. All we need do is go ahead and recognize that fetuses
> have the same rights as mature humans. We simply do not give them
> EXTRA rights. Since mature humans do not have the right to feed
> off of others against their will (according to Constitutional,
> NAP and self-ownership principles), neither do fetuses. Under
> this view, the only decisions left are issues regarding whether
> "killing" the fetus prior to evacuating is a rights violation,
> and issues regarding whether not feeding your infant is a rights
> violation (child neglect). HA! No problem!
Actually, there are a number of problems with the "tapeworm
hypothesis" (which is a lot older than Paul Ireland's use of it here).
See Julian Sanchez's piece on the problem with analogies used in the
arguments at:
http://www.juliansanchez.com/notes/archives/2005/03/in_search_of_fe.php
As for myself, as promised, I'm not going to argue the subject of
abortion at that level. I entered the discussion with one, and only
one, goal, which was achieving recognition of fact and reality with
respect to the biological identity of the organisms being discussed.
Beyond achieving that, I prefer to learn rather than teach.
Tom knapp
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
SPONSORED LINKS
| Libertarian | English language | Political parties |
| Online dictionary | American politics |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
