lab@qubix.UUCP (07/15/83)
Whew! Look at the battle over abortion rage! At least we're
getting it out of the courts and back into the people's hands!
Sitting back and reading the comments, I've been trying to find the major
dividing line between
"...they want the RIGHT [to abort a fetus] to themselves..."
(Adam L. Buschbaum, who will catch a lot of my chill)
and
"whether a fetus (which I'm assuming is human) has a right to life"
(Liz Allen)
also known as "pro-choice" vs. "pro-life." The former have two main points:
1. The fetus is not human, and thus not entitled to human rights.
2. The fetus is the property of the mother, who can do with it as she wishes,
even to killing it.
vs. the latter
1. The fetus is human, and thus is entitled to human rights (e.g., life)
2. The fetus, beginning with the zygote, is its own entity, not the mother's;
thus the mother cannot do as she pleases with it.
Even between Monday (when I started writing this) and today (Thursday),
there has been a lot of discussion on this. And a lot of it misses the main
point: WHAT IS A HUMAN BEING? At what point is there a new "human being" on
Planet Earth? Before fertilization? At fertilization? When the zygote
attaches itself? X amount of time? First brain activity? Delivery? Cutting
the umbilical? 1 week after birth? WHEN?
And when you answer that, I would also like to learn the axioms of the
belief system you used to arrive at your conclusion, because (as will be
shown) THAT is where the problem lies.
Much has been said about the "medical definition" of death - lack of brain
activity. Brad Balfour said "the only reason the body keeps on functioning
for any length of time is that some form of artificial life support is used."
Have you so soon forgotten Karen Quinlan? Have you also forgotten the
reasons for a "medical definition"? Basically, EXPEDIENCY -
1. To avoid wasting money on hopeless causes (the person will never regain
consciousness, and thus the efforts will be useless)
2. To make donor organs available.
"Brain death" is not an absolute; it is a calculated guess. Resumption of
brain activity (whether internally or from external stimuli) has not been
proven impossible, and if it ever occurs, the hornets will REALLY fly!
(3-D notice: David Sher, Don Chan, Darrell Plank) Let's get back to the
basics of life itself - cells capable of metabolism and replication.
Separately, neither egg nor sperm is capable of replication; the zygote they
form is indeed capable of replication, and it will replicate into a being
distinct from the beings whose parts composed it. FURTHERMORE, in the case
of human sperm and egg, the resulting zygote is genetically HUMAN and thus
CANNOT become anything else. Thus the zygote is NOT a "potential human being"
- it IS homo sapiens. And it is NOT the mother. And therein is pro-life.
(Warning: Hornets approaching!) Some have said that society can draw a line.
BASED ON WHAT? Society is not changeless, and any line it draws, it can (and
will and HAS) change. Based on society alone, "decency" is a nebulous idea,
as are "right," "wrong," "good," and "evil." ANY measurement is relative
to some standard, but the only one society has of itself is "Everyone doing
whatever he wants to" (also paraphrases the last verse of Judges) - and need
I stress that this is where society is currently heading?
The only "SOME POINT IN THE PREGNANCY" available to the "pro-choice" people is
when the child leaves the womb - it is the only fixable point of time.
Or is it when the umbilical cord is cut? What if the cutting of the cord is
delayed? Is the baby human? Would killing it after birth but before cutting
be murder? Or after a week (like Infant Doe in Indiana)? The problem gets
thicker with Caesarean sections...
Should we removed the label "human" from (physically or mentally) deformed
children? Dave Ellis asks, "What would YOU do if you had to raise a severely
deformed or retarded baby?" I have known many families with handicapped
children, and the common agreement for raising such a child is not blaming
anyone, but loving the child. To me as a Christian, such children are
special: they remind me that I don't deserve even what they have. As it was
with the man born blind, it was "that the works of God should be made
manifest in him." (John 9:3)
The "quality of life" attitude, that a dead child is better off than a
deformed one, is appalling, yet it is very prevalent. I wish people of such
attitude would visit the C. Everett Koop Children's Hospital (I think in
Philadelphia). They would meet a lot of "deformed" kids who know a lot more
about living than the rest of us, for they are very thankful for what they
have instead of grumbling about what they don't have. Some of them give
their personal stories in the Schaeffer film series "What Ever Happened to
the Human Race?" (And the kids are NOT all Christians - in fact, probably
none are. Yet they will challenge any abortionist.)
The rest of "What Ever Happened to the Human Race?" is also good for anyone
wondering "Does it matter that man was made in the image of God?" (At least
Schaeffer is willing to make his base point known!) and for anyone else
interested on the subjects of abortion, infanticide, or euthanasia.
Adam has mentioned brain activity and claimed a double standard on the part
of the pro-lifers. And what will you do when, with better instruments, you
discover that you have killed those who indeed did have brain activity?
If one were to accept Adam's view that "the anti's tell people they MUSTN'T
get abortions, no matter what their philosophical views," then why restrain
those who philosophically support genocide? Adam's views are groundless.
Alan provides the final insult with "There are already too many people in
the world." This is nothing more than a good excuse for genocide. BTW, there
are NOT too many people in the world! If the religious restrictions on food
were removed (my deepest apologies to the Hindus), there would be more than
enough food. (And were it economically feasible, we could provide a lot
more!) All 4+E9 people would fit inside the city limits of Jacksonville,
Florida without touching (5 sq.ft./person). Now, what was your reasoning?
I really shouldn't let this go without provide some way of approaching the
problem, but I will GUARANTEE that it won't get a nice reception (but it
will be VERY warm). First, what is the real problem? Not unwanted children.
Not uninformed kids. You've heard it twice before and you didn't like it, so
I'll say it again: The problem is IRRESPONSIBLE USE OF THE SEXUAL FUNCTION.
This occurs more outside the marriage relationship than in it (then again,
by the standards of many, including myself, ANY sex outside marriage is
irresponsible). It comes from a desire to have the pleasures of sex without
the willingness to assume any resulting responsibilities, and extends itself
into turning a glorious act of love into a cheap thrill. (Incidentally, would
some evolutionist care to provide me with some reasons why the two are so
intertwined? Super pleasure should be easier to have, and pregnancy and
labor shouldn't be so rough. :-)
But what do we see today? The constant push in the media that "sex is
everything," resulting in an attitude that if birth control measures weren't
available, few of the "sexually active" would quit having sex. Those who
grew up during the "sexual liberation" are now so liberated they haven't
taught their own kids about sex - the same kids who are finding out about
sex the hard way. The answer is NOT more biological information about sex. I
could give you a five-second summary of everything you'd learn in a school
"sex ed" course (Timers ready?): "If you have sex, you can get VD, the girl
can get pregnant, and there are ways of avoiding both." This isn't "sex"
education; it's only pregnancy and VD education.
Would somebody stop and ask the teenagers what their REAL questions are, as
was done a few years back? You'd find questions like "How can I talk with my
parents about sex?" "Do you have to have sex when you go out?" "Is a girl
necessarily bad because she's pregnant?" "How can I know when it's real
love?" "How can I know when it the 'right one'?" (It would blow your minds
to know where I found these questions.)
If we would get the emphasis off sex and back onto LOVE, we would find the
problems diminishing rapidly. Unfortunately, this society is so caught up
with the material that it can't distinguish between the two. I have been
giving some thought and doing some work on a treatise "Better Love WITHOUT
Sex," and the research has been wonderful - and VERY useful. Learning to
give and receive love without sexual contact is not easy, but it produces a
more enduring love - a love that works.
Keeping it 4 Celsius inside the igloo, {ittvax,amd70}!qubix!lab
Larry Bickford, {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!qubix!lab