I posted this a long time ago, then read it, found it controversial and deleted it.
Apparently it was being shared in Google Reader.
I've decided to post it up again.
( Now that I am thinking of ideas far more controversial than this )
Here it goes ...
by Saran on 5/12/09
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Final year Project is finally done and my mind can't wait to resume day dreaming.
Saw a Romanian movie a couple of weeks ago. 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days. It is basically about a 20-something woman trying to get an abortion, during the times when it was illegal. There was not really anything much to the movie, but the topic is thought provoking enough to keep one interested. Abortion.
In most countries there is a time after which you cannot legally terminate a pregnancy. It is usually around 25 weeks. The reasons stem from both ethical and practical concerns, but I am going to discuss only about ethics here. A major issue is to distinguish murder from abortion. And to do that we need to define when a mass of cells come alive. And to do that we need to define what is Alive.
And sure billions of human hours must have been spent on trying to define this. I'll attempt to do that trying to be cogent enough to an average individual.
As far as I am concerned, I am as alive as a Computer, but we'll come to that later.
Is a virus alive? Even medically it is a cat on the wall. Is bacteria alive? say single celled bacteria? Medically yes. Is the sperm and the egg alive? They are single cells. Well anyway, when they meet and form embryo and cells start to reproduce ( mitosis, meiosis ) they cells are alive. ( Only living things reproduce ). So when you terminate a three month old foetus, its cells are alive, but it is not alive as such ( going by law ). If it were, then the act would be murder. So, we can conclude that there is a difference between a clutter of live cells and the organism being alive.
When should we say, the baby comes alive? Heartbeat? No. Heart starts beating in the fifth week. How about this? As soon as the baby receives sensory inputs from its surroundings, its brain starts to process them and generate results and observations. The process of learning begins after the baby has opened its eyes and ears - when it is out of the womb. How about calling this alive?
So basically, a mother has the right to kill her child until the time the child's brain processes external stimuli. Until then, it is simply the mother's property. Just like her fingernail, her hand, her computer. It is all hers.
Well. OK. Now lets talk about what right a mother has to her baby. Can she filter sensory inputs? Yes. ( Parental filter etc on the web :P ). To what extent? Now, what if the mother, when the baby was her property, decides to block all input to its brain. ( Say she suddenly decides that the world is an evil place ). She keeps the baby in a dark room, sound proof and all that. No sensory input. No brain development.
She can still destroy her baby? Can't she?
Well, that was a question for you people.
As for me, acknowledging that I am no more than a computer, my mother can ethically terminate me whenever she wants. It is through her kindness, that I am free.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
naandakore??
Well an interesting question.Even plants can also respond to stimuli. But you should consider consciousness. I can't define the term definitely. And i know when you are outside the mother's womb you certainly have it. So your mother can't kill because even if sensorily paralysed you are conscious of yourself. Supposedly this consciousness i very less in animals and totally non existent in plants. 'Life' in plants is characterised only my response to stimuli and cell growth and other 'biological' activities.
Exactly. This absence of definition of consciousness is the most bothering. You lose your hold on reason.
Chicken, Cow, etc all have it, less or more is subjective, but people seem to be indifferent in taking their lives. Go a little higher - termination of a person born with mental/physical disabilities. What about killing dogs and cats ( pets ).
If you think about it all wrong that Hitler had done was push that level to include Jews as well. ("No dogs and Jews allowed"). But then the world revolted.
Well, I am willing to push this to the all encompassing human level, and have an axiom of "Live and Let live" included in my survival theory to enable my survival so I can hopefully end up defining what consciousness is, or die in an attempt to.
Until I manage to define that, I find it blasphemous to believe that such a thing exists ( going by scientific/logical principles ) and rationalize my existence using that. And this was why I ended up owing my life to my mom, who I think is my morally "rightful" owner of me and can issue a "delete(son);" anytime she wishes. ( And I'd like to have that right too - no evil intentions. Just about freedom )
Post a Comment