[Vision2020] Re: The bone of contention: Do the unborn have a unalienable right to life?

[Chasuk]

On 3/18/06, ToeKneeTime at aol.com <ToeKneeTime at aol.com> wrote:

> none.  I don't approach this debate from a religious perspective.  I believe
> that someday science will unlock the mystery that we refer to as the soul.

"Soul" is a religious concept, hence those two statements are
contradictory.  "Mind" or "consciousness" are scientific concepts,
which have been adequately explained for decades.  Mind, to put it
simply, is a consequence of the anatomy and physiology of the brain. 
Consciousness Explained, by Daniel Dennett, is available in paperback,
and has been available for about 15 years.  It thoroughly debunks any
idea of the mystical "I."

> I think that at the moment that two people's DNA combine to form another distinct and separate entity, these things are encoded, and if left unmolested, will develop into a human being.

I'm not disagreeing with you here, I simply don't care what something
has the potential to become, but rather what it is. Until
mind/consciousness is present, I don't consider human life to be more
important than any other animal life.  Human animal does not equate to
human being.

This is related to the point I was trying to make earlier -- that Joan
further explicated (regarding blastocysts) -- which you decided to
ignore.