|
Antoni Mont escribió:
Pero ninguno de estos estadios nos definen el momento en que tenemos
"vida humana", porque las definiciones son, por definición, valga
la redundancia, arbitrarias.
Y es que, encima, no definimos ni siquiera lo que es humano, cuándo
empiza a ser "persona" este "contínuo". Humano claro que lo es,
como lo es este cabello que veo encima de mi teclado....
Saludos también
Teresa
Saludos, Toni_____ P.S.:
Después de escribir lo que precede me he dado una vuelta por la
red y he encontrado, con sensación agridulce, el párrafo
abajo adjunto procedente de www.religioustolerance.org. Digo
agridulce, porque si de un lado constato con satisfacción que mi
razonamiento es compartido casi al 100%, de otro me quedo con la sensación
de haber perdido el tiempo en averiguar lo que ya sabía, por insuficiente
"self-confidence" ;-).
The philosophical and religious principle behind the pro-choice/pro-life
argument is: when does life (in the form of an ovum and sperm) become human
life?. After that event occurs, terminating life is a form of murder which
many people believe can only be justified to prevent the death of the mother,
prevent extremely serious injury to the mother, or in cases of rape or
incest.
Science can tell us, with increasing detail, the processes that start
with a sperm and ovum and end up with a newborn baby. But it cannot tell
us: -- does the fetus have a soul?
-- when do the products of conception become a human being?
-- does a zygote have a full set of human rights?
-- when does personhood develop?
-- is abortion murder? These are questions with philosophical,
religious and political aspects. Science cannot contribute a great deal
towards resolving them. And because they have a religious component, there
will always be a wide variety of beliefs among persons in different faith
groups. Resaludos.
|