Yes, the real question is not when HUMAN LIFE begins, but when that LIFE become a HUMAN PERSON.
The clinical end of human life, at which point organs can be removed for transplant, is the cessation of measurable brain waves. The ONSET of measurable brain waves, is correspondingly the earliest point at which clinical human life can reasonably said to have occurred, late in the second trimester.
But it is more than just the beginning of LIFE or even PERSONHOOD.
The issue is not about LIFE.
It is about controlling women’s bodies. And the proof is that once a baby has been born, the same “pro-life” people will do NOTHING to help feed, clothe, educate or care for that child or its needs once it is no longer inside the female body they wish to control.
Further proof?
There is NO CONDITION under which a MAN is forced to use his body to keep another person alive. NONE. Even when the question of personhood is not on the table, such as the case of a fully adult human person.
Imagine the case of two adult persons: a perfect genetic match, such as identical twins. But they have become, for whatever reason, estranged.
There would never be a case in which an adult identical twin would not be FORCED to use his body, even for a very short time, to donate, say, bone marrow which regenerates fully, to keep his twin alive if he did not choose to do so voluntarily (as most more likely would). But it would be his CHOICE.
Yes, the real question is not when HUMAN LIFE begins, but when that LIFE become a HUMAN PERSON.
The clinical end of human life, at which point organs can be removed for transplant, is the cessation of measurable brain waves. The ONSET of measurable brain waves, is correspondingly the earliest point at which clinical human life can reasonably said to have occurred, late in the second trimester.
But it is more than just the beginning of LIFE or even PERSONHOOD.
The issue is not about LIFE.
It is about controlling women’s bodies. And the proof is that once a baby has been born, the same “pro-life” people will do NOTHING to help feed, clothe, educate or care for that child or its needs once it is no longer inside the female body they wish to control.
Further proof?
There is NO CONDITION under which a MAN is forced to use his body to keep another person alive. NONE. Even when the question of personhood is not on the table, such as the case of a fully adult human person.
Imagine the case of two adult persons: a perfect genetic match, such as identical twins. But they have become, for whatever reason, estranged.
There would never be a case in which an adult identical twin would not be FORCED to use his body, even for a very short time, to donate, say, bone marrow which regenerates fully, to keep his twin alive if he did not choose to do so voluntarily (as most more likely would). But it would be his CHOICE.
http://emerald7tfb.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/moral-issues-life-vs-personhood/