[extropy-chat] ?Embryos? created without paternal chromosomes

[Hal Finney]

Ben writes:
> Actually, i have a more serious question. There must be people who don't 
> take the 'ensoulment' issue seriously, but still think that it's wrong 
> to create an embryo then destroy it. What is the basis of this? If the 
> objection is not based on supernatural grounds, what is it based on? I'm 
> not clear on why somebody who knows that it's just a ball of cells, 
> still thinks it's somehow special (more special, i mean, than a drop of 
> blood or a lump of meat).

I thought you made very good points.  I did a little research recently to
see what exactly the Christian foundation is for opposition to abortion.
Surprisingly, the Bible is not at all clear on the subject.  The idea
that fetuses have souls and should be protected from being destroyed
relies on some very questionable readings of just a few Biblical verses.
God never says, thou shalt not commit abortion.

As far as those who are anti-abortion but don't agree about 'souls', I
think that their beliefs come down to the semantic notion that a fetus
is a human life and deserves the protection of one.  There is no sharp
dividing line between a just-about-to-be-born fetus and one just a few
days old.  Given this gray area some people are uncomfortable drawing
a line and saying that it is OK to destroy the fetus before this point
but not after.  Maybe you could look at survival outside the womb in a
natural state (without modern technology) as a dividing line, but that
would seem to allow killing babies who would survive if born today.

The very words we use, "fetus" vs "unborn baby", tend to influence
our thoughts.  If you think of this "ball of cells" as an unborn baby
then you are more likely to want it to be protected.

Hal