Some people believe that talking about evolution is useless. Who are the researchers that study evolution? They’re people who want to assert themselves, to start careers, and that’s why they suggest theories, make researches that nobody needs. Maybe there are, like in every profession, but evolution is the spinal cord of biology.
Without it biology is naturalism, the description of some species, like it used to be done in the 18th century, but even then evolutionist theories were starting to appear (for example the theory of Lamarck). What they don’t know is that it has practical applications; it leads to creating more productive species of plants, so it interferes in the struggle with hunger, but also helps in understanding some diseases, which drives us closer to their treatment. I know that many are allergic to talks about diseases, about their mechanisms, but evolution does this too. My evolutionist theory, presented in “Civilization of famine / the human evolution seen from another angle” really does this. You know that the human suffers from very serious or incurable diseases, but rare or not existent at chimps, although the resemblance between these species at genetic level is about 99%? But who wants me to talk about type II diabetes, cancer, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, Alzheimer or psychic diseases, about common mechanisms of these diseases, about their relation with the environment in which the human evolved? Anyway, for who is interested, there is only one place where you can find the answer to the question of why men do these diseases, or he does them in a much bigger extent than the chimp. Diseases are not a nice subject matter, and their cure doesn’t make you a hero, but the fight.
The war between the evolution and sacred embryology
So, because people want war, they want controversial subjects, evolution gives them this too. Abortion in Romania is, to my great surprise, a controversial subject. Why? / Because it is considered that human life begins with conceiving. Recently, Mrs. Hillary Clinton declared that after she visited Romania, she was in favor of the right to abortion, although she considers that life begins at conception. It is said that Mrs. Clinton is very smart. It seems that she is smart, but she didn’t like biology. How does life begin from conception? Life begins much before. Life is within every cell of the animal or human body. Then how to start from conception? Were ovules and spermatozoa dead? No, they weren’t. Then life begins before conception, life is in diploid cells (somatic ones, all the cells in the human body, excepting the germinal ones), and also in haploid ones (with half a number of chromosomes, meaning the ovule and the spermatozoon). There are mature organisms which are haploid at other species (plants, for example). Then obviously life does not start from conception.
But when does human life begin? This is harder. As far as I know, although I admit my lack of knowledge in religion field (beyond reading the Bible), it is considered that the soul is received at conceiving. On the other hand, animals don’t have a soul, which I consider a big injustice. At least mammals should have a soul, so the soul would be a function of their nervous system. But is the conception product human? It is said that animals don’t have soul because they don’t speak, they don’t have human thinking, consciousness. But the conception product, has it? Chimps don’t have a soul, but some human DNA cells do it is known from Haeckel, in its development the human embryo looks like other organisms which precede the human on the phylogenetic scale (“ontogenesis repeats phyilogenesis”, although things are more complicated). In these stages, the human embryo is over the amphibian, mammal, but not over the human being.
When can it be considered human? If we think that in the last quarter of pregnancy the human brain doubles its volume, the humanization of the embryo takes place very late. The chimps brain is three times smaller than the human one, and those who are against abortion don’t consider murder killing a chimp, which communicates so humanly, and his society is so similar to ours. In addition, the humanization of the human child takes place after birth in an extraordinary extent. The brain continues its rapid increase, but its nervous system is not human yet. Not only the newborn doesn’t speak, he hasn’t consciousness, but he can’t even walk or keep his head vertically. The human is not only human biology; he is human education, the influence of human society. Wild children are an image of human biological condition, except human education. In the opinion of theologians, do savage children have soul? What about children in Romanian orphanages during Ceausescu’s government?
Society makes us humans
After the Roman laws, the citizenship was obtained at one year of age, until then children were out of law, they could be killed without legal consequences. Of course, this is barbarism, but it reflects the manner of perception of human condition appearance in Antiquity. For a modern evolutionist, the moment of beginning human life is rather difficult to place in time, for that we need first a clear and accurate definition of human condition. What is certain is that, through evolution, we must give as many opportunities as we can to human individuals to exist as people. The purpose of any species is that its genes be the best represented. But the man who is out of culture and out of the human society is not a man. An abortion eliminates the virtual chance of a human existence. But it can be considered an infinite smaller crime than restricting a child’s access to education, his marginalization and conviction to a miserable life, often in the penitentiary system. Between the appearance of conception product and human life is a distance measured in natural, biological decisive events, bigger than the distance between the condition of an intelligent child and that of an educated adult, integrated in society. This means that an intelligent child has more chances to become an educated man who is useful to the society than an embryo has to become a man, chances which can be destroyed by the society. It is the same society who is guilty of abortion, when its most miserable members (poor, uneducated women, together with their partners having the same conditions) resort to this. It is sad that in the 21st century, these problems are still here. Instead of interdicting abortion, society should take measures so that people no longer resort to it, except for special situations (severe congenital malformations, mother’s life being in danger). The right to abortion should be like the right to self-defense or property protection. It should be in the law, but people should understand that it is not good to kill delinquents who enter their houses or cars.
