culturejam wrote:bigchiefbc wrote:So couldn't we start from there for determining when life starts? Heartbeat in a fetus is pretty early, around 8 weeks or so. Brain activity is quite a bit later, usually around 24-27 weeks, which is basically the start of the third trimester. So that's a pretty good line for when life is considered to start. I think I'd probably be ok with that compromise.
It'll never work, because your premise is far too well thought out and based on something that can be defined and also tested. Fail.
Not as easy, and not as well-thought out as you might think.
Isolated heart cells in a petri dish will start to pulsate on their own and no-one is going to say they're a living human being.
You'd also have to get into the question of what
type of brain activity are you going to measure? (You'd even have to get into at what stage in development do you have a brain? When there is a recognisable ectoderm? At the neural plate stage (and when exactly does that start)? Neural groove? Neural fold? Neural tube? Wait tile the neuropores form? You want to wait until all three of the primary brain vesicles form? Or just one? Or two? (and when exactly is that?). Or wait til you have a telencephalon? mesencephalon? rhombencephalon? Axon outgrowth? Before or after synapse formation? Which synapse(s)? And why? Myelination? None of this is easy in nematodes or flies (except myelination -- insects don't do it) let alone human embryos.
And you'll always have dissenters anyway basing their ideas off things people wrote down when they still through the world was flat, at the centre of the universe, and disease was caused by demonic possession.
Anyway, if you want to keep the population in check, there's always the Logan's Run solution