The Ontogenetic Origin of Human Beings in the Scientific-Ethics Perspective and its Implications on Abortion

Abortion implies legacy, ethics, moral, religious, theological and political considerations and consequences. Abortion implies two main actions: 1) interruption of pregnancy with fetus nonviable ex-uterus or 2) killing the embryo or fetus. The intention to kill the human conception is a necessary condition for being an abortion. However, at what stage the zygote, embryo or fetus is an individual of the Homo sapiens species as to decide that action was an abortion? We have two contradictory positions: 1) the scientific or ontic position establishing that endogenous processes and conditions determine humans; 2) the conventional or gnosic position believing that this determination is an exogenous deliberation from religious, ideological or legal assumptions. Scientific Ethics (Sc-Et, a new form of Ethics) assumes the ontic position. For Sc-Et humans and any living being begin its individual existence due to specific endogenous matter-energy processes regardless human conventions. We, humans should study these processes and allow them to convince us on their specificities. Sc-Et accepts the process of cosmic and organic evolution and uses all kinds of demonstrations to establish its notions and definitions. For Sc-Et the process of evolution generated humans and their ethics and culture; it is not the human thinking that generates evolution. For Sc-Et, humans are individuals of Homo sapiens species that begin as an individual as any living being begins as an individual of their respective species. The phylo-ontogenetic process auto-define endogenously (from within) the beginning of H sapiens at the zygote stage. This viewpoint disagrees with most conventional religious, ethical and law positions which may lack of reality. Several conventional propositions on the ontogenetic origin of H sapiens are refuted showing that the present ethical, bioethical, law, religious or ideological approaches to this subject are often contradictory and show rather a picture of cultural schizophrenia. Journal of Clinical Research Bioethics J o u r n a l o f C lin ical Resrch& Bioe t h i c s