At what point does a zygote or blastocyst or embryo or fetus become a human being? At the point where is can survive outside the uterus.
What do you mean "survive"? Shit my 50 year old mother wouldn't be able to survive if it wasn't for the state check that came in every month.
I'm curious about the whole "unique genetic code" thing, too. What about twins? Are they one person, or two people? How about ramets of Agave or other plants that reproduce by clonal fragmentation or other such mechanisms? What about asexually reproducing worms and nematodes? If humans reproduced asexually, would abortion be acceptable? Cancer cells have unique genetic makeups, but they're not their own organisms, or are they? Cells in the salivary glands of Drosophila have sometimes wildly altered genetic makeups from the rest of the organism - are they individual unicellular organisms living within a larger host?
Granted I'm studying botany right now, so my perceptions are a little bit skewed in that respect, but I've been taught to define an "individual" or "organism" as a mass of organic matter that is physiologically distinct from other masses of organic matter OR a genetically distinct mass of organic matter. Fetuses are genetically distinct, but not physiologically distinct. Which takes precedence? If it's not ok to kill genetically distinct but physiologically dependent organisms, is it then OK to kill physiologically independent but genetically identical individuals, like twins?
Viruses also present a lovely little conundrum. Many scientists don't consider viruses to be living things - they cannot reproduce on their own, making them physiologically dependent but genetically independent organisms. So does that mean fetuses, as physiologically dependent but genetically independent organisms, are not in their own respect living?
How about a few steps further: what about mutualistic relationships? You would have an awfully hard time getting through the day if it wasn't for your symbiotic bacterial flora. You're dependent upon another living thing, so is murder acceptable?
The reality is you can't define life or the worthiness of life in a biological sense. You can't draw the line at conception, or birth, or viability, because life is an awfully abstract concept. They call it the "circle of life" for a reason - where does the circle begin and end?
The line, I beleive, is at sentience. Sentient organisms hold a unique place in the realm of life, because they are capable of making altruistic choices. We, as humans, are capable of granting resources, life, and reproductive ability to other organisms at a cost to ourselves. We can set aside perfectly good farmland for the conservation of certain plants and animals. We can sacrifice free-range livestock in an effort to keep wolf populations afloat. To my knowledge, no other organism is capable of thinking outside its own reproductive and survival value.
To that extent, I think abortion is a primitive practice. It's a cousin to ethnic cleansing and genetic purification. Hitler did a good job aborting genetically unfit individuals from psyche wards and handicap hospitals, and that's exactly what we're doing with abortion: removing (potential) individuals from our population because they serve no purpose to ourselves as individuals. They lower our quality of life, and therefore our ability to survive. There's nothing wrong with lions killing cubs that aren't theirs, but there is something wrong with human infanticide - we know better.
Is there anything inherently wrong with abortion? Nope, nothing at all - as long as you're okay taking a step back on the evolutionary line.
I like posting.
