asbestosman wrote:nteresting, but I would still consider the systematic killing of any infertile people to be wrong for the same reasons that I find eugenic or dysgenic practices to be scary.
Oh, I wouldn't say "Kill the females because they might spread their diseased chromosome 21, but let the males live because they are infertile." I might suggest sterilizing the females, but never killing them.
That said, I understand that many do not see personhood as beginning at conception. I did, however think that your view was once that personhood might start when the brain starts to form. Isn't that before the 1st trimester (i.e. before Amniocentesis)? Maybe I misremember / misunderstood.
I do not believe personhood begins at conception.
I do not believe that there is a moment of stark personhood once the neuroectoderm develops in an embryo. In this case there is the precondition of severe genetic damage, and I have also mentioned the possibility of things worse than Down's Syndrome. What then? If the embryo has a genetic makeup that gives it only a 1% chance of achieving somebody's definition of productive, should it always get the pass into life or could it sometimes be shunted aside to give another a chance to be human? We have the ability to make these decisions. I don't think we must always give in to nature's or god's lottery because of a line we drew long ago.
I would say it depends on the individual couple. Maybe this is their last shot at a baby and they want to try to raise a very disabled human, and maybe they have the resources to take care of it no matter what. Maybe that was Sarah Palin. Cool. On the other hand, maybe they don't have the will to bear such a burden, or give it up to the larger family/church/state apparatus. Maybe they only have room for one child in their plans, and would rather do it over ASAP. At 4 months of gestation the organism has no idea, even if it already has as many functional neurons as a cockroach or a lizard.