Text 244, 62 rader
Skriven 2004-11-29 15:58:02 av Paul Rogers (1:105/360.0)
     Kommentar till en text av Greg Paksi
Ärende: a scientific answer
===========================
 GP> I'd like to get opinions and thoughts on the question of "when
 GP> does an individuals life begin"?
 GP> As far as what I know of science, it would have to be the instance
 GP> the two sets (male and female) of chromosomes join together.
 GP> But I know not enough information to make such a important
 GP> decision.  Any thoughts are appreciated.  Thanks.

It has no strictly scientific answer.  I think you're trying to use
Science to resolve what has become a religious issue.  That is
prostituting Science.  No takers here, the price is too high.

Biologically an embryo, a fetus, is a parasite in the mother's body, if
we're talking about humans.  In general people, and the law, have
accepted the point at which it becomes a "free-living" body, i.e. birth.
At the instant of conception what you have is a single diploid cell,
intrinsically no different than any other cell.  It's genetic
constitution may be different than either parent, but if that cell
splits after dividing, on a path to make identical twins, it is no
longer unique.  If the instant of conception is your definition, then
identical twins must be two halves of one individual.  If the genotype
is what you consider important, what is a clone, like Dolly, the sheep?
Is she a new "instantiation" of the old individual?

Define "individual".  If we were to discuss individualization, that
doesn't happen until about the age of 2 years old, when the child
discovers it has independent choice, begins to appreciate the meaning of
the word, "No", and use it to express itself.  So I could meaningfully
argue that point in time when there is actual self-realization, which is
hardly what you had in mind, is it?

But if self-realization is important, what do you consider a person with
advanced Alzheimer's, who has lost all connection with a history of
events.  Generally the family complains that it now has a body, but the
individual is gone.  So is what makes an individual a connection to a
historical record?

There are even stroke victims who have a perception of their body which
is at odds with all the parts what are connected to them.  I've seen
people who, when you pick up their right hand and ask, "Whose hand is
this?", will rightly answer, "Mine."  But when you pick up their left
hand, they say, "I don't know, but it's not mine.  I wish you'd take it
away.", even though you demonstrate it is contiguous with every part of
the body they identify as their own self.  Who you, yourself,
individually are is a function of your brain working properly.  When it
doesn't, are you less of an individual?

There is no easy, "correct", answer to your question.  You just pick one
that satisfies you idiosyncratically, and live with it.

I've been raising pigeons seriously for over a half century, and that
includes significant attention to genetics.  I often deal with
fertilized eggs.  Not all of which I allow to be incubated.

Paul Rogers, paulgrogers@yahoo.com                       -o)
http://www.angelfire.com/or/paulrogers                   /\\
Rogers' Second Law: Everything you do communicates.     _\_V

... Life is too short to teach logic to slugs.
___ MultiMail/MS-DOS v0.35

---
 * Origin: The Bare Bones BBS (1:105/360)