> > Some of you believe life begins at conception, and many of you believe this because of your religion. Well, not everyone in this country goes to church, and many Americans disagree with your idea of sin. When life begins cannot be dictated by religious beliefs, and there is no certain answer.
>
> There is, most definitely, a certain answer.
>
> Not all people hold the same set of religious beliefs, so let's take a scientific approach to this issue. What makes my life different from the life of my parents? My DNA. This molecule is how we define life.
>
> When my father's genetic material joins that of my mother's, a completely unique set of DNA is produced. This new combination will dictate which specific proteins will form my body. Because the DNA is different, the proteins which form my body are also different. Therefore, my body is separate from my mother's body. I am a unique individual. I live, even when I am a 2 celled sphere in the home I have in my mother's womb.
>
> The developing baby needs the mother to survive but that doesn't mean it is part of her body to dispose of as she pleases. It is life, separate and unique, beginning at the moment of fertilization and, as such, demands our utmost respect and protection.
>
>
> Gahalia

*thunk* *thunk* *thunk*

(Sound of Arthur hitting his head against the wall)

I just *knew* if I started posting four-pagers on the death penalty this would happen...

*Must* you tempt me with *all* the hot topics on my first week back here? :)

Well, here goes nothing...

Note: This is not something I have Strong Views on. To me, this is not a question of whether or not human life is important. This is a question of the definition of human life. Though important, it's less fundamental and I could probably be convinced one way or the other on it.

However, that doesn't mean I don't have any opinion... :)

Question: *Does* a unique DNA code determine a unique human person?

Fact: Identical twins have identical DNA.

Fact: Identical twins actually begin as *one* fertilized ovum at conception.

Fact: Nonetheless, we consider identical twins to be one, not two, individuals, even though they came from one cell with one DNA code.

Question: Why?

Idea: Identical twins are different people despite their identical genes because of their different thought processes, life experiences, memories, emotions, etc.

Idea: Could it be that that's what defines a person and not DNA?

Qustion: Who's to say what qualifies as "life experience"? Isn't this leading down the slippery slope of executing the mentally disabled, the old, the ill, the lower-than-average intelligence?

Idea: There's a difference between judging the *quality* of thought processes and the *existence* of thought processes.

Idea: It's pretty universal among the medical and lay communities to define the death of a human person as brain death, the cessation of brain activity. (Note: This should not be confused with the end of all *potential* brain activity. Though, indeed, medical evidence suggests that it is impossible to "reactivate" the brain after brain death, this is not, technically, provable, given that we know so little about how the brain works; we only assume, with good reason, that the life of the mind depends on constant, uninterrupted brainwave activity and the cessation of such activity effectively ends the life of the mind, true death of the person.)

Idea: If the *end* of a human person's life is the cessation of brain activity, might not the beginning of human life be the beginning of brain activity? If a human being is defined by thoughts, emotions, memories, the soul, and if all our evidence suggests that the soul is, if not generated by the brain, at least depends on it for its connection to the body (how I prefer to think of it) and that a body without brain activity is by any reasonable definition soulless (no possible emotions, no possible thoughts, no possible humanity).

Corollary: This is probably the only reasonable definition of human life. If I die and my heart, say, is transplanted to another person's body, the heart still lives, takes in food, regenerates dead cells, and is, generally, a living thing. It still has my unique DNA, it's still alive, but is it me? No. And about unique DNA: If I get exposed to high-intensity radiation and a mutation develops in some of my cells (causing, for example, leukemia, God forbid), then those cells now have different DNA. And those cells are still alive. But do the unique DNA and the life add up to a new human person living inside me? I hope not, or there might be a lobby for tumors' rights. (Okay, that's morbid and gross. I'm sorry.) The definition of me is in my soul, which physically resides in my brain.

Fact: A fetus does not develop a working brain until a few weeks into the second trimester. Allowing only first-trimester abortions would leave a more than generous cushion (for a highly unlikely prodigy child that began developing its brain two weeks ahead of schedule); such are the plans many activists are submitting to Congress.

Fact: Unlike a blastula, a formed and developing brain *cannot* split into two functioning brains with two functioning personalities; once the brain is formed, it seems, the person is set as one person.

Conclusion: It seems logical to me to define a person by the soul and to locate the soul by the brain; a fetus without a brain would therefore as yet be without a soul and be defined as a potential person but not yet a person (similar to the original ovum and spermatazoon). I would therefore tentatively extend my support to first-trimester abortions but oppose second- or third-trimester abortions or dilate-and-extract (commonly known as partial-birth) abortions of living fetuses.

However, like I said, this isn't something I have Strong Views on. Though the scientific basis for my beliefs seems fairly sound (which is why I believe them), I understand the viewpoints of those who want to be safe and not kill any potential person with unique DNA. I do sympathize with hardcore pro-lifers in a way that I don't with hardcore pro-DPers because I think we agree on basic principles, we just disagree on certain definitions and scientific concepts.

I think the bullet point thing helped me keep it shorter this time! :) Anyway, anyone else have anything to say? (Though there might be riots if we keep these threads going too long...)