arndt@squirt.DEC (08/15/85)
From a recent Church newspaper: "Sixty prominent physicians have recently declared that the 'biological facts' show that the unborn are living human beings. The doctors, including two past presidents of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, signed a statement aimed at SHIFTING THE FOCUS OF THE DEBATE AWAY FROM RELIGION AND MAKING IT A BIOLOGICAL FACT. (italics mine) The statement says in part that 'a human ovum fertilized by a human sperm produces a BIOLOGICALLY IDENTIFIABLE (italics mine again,- Tanenbaum, et al take note!) human embryo. That embryo contains all the essential biological material and genitic information required for complete celular maturation, human tissue and organ development." I realize this doesn't fit some people's ideology! But let's realize that there ARE 'scientists' (wave your magic twanger, froggy!) out there who take the same stand as the anti-abortion people. Regards, Ken Arndt
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (08/17/85)
> [Ken Arndt] > From a recent Church newspaper: > "Sixty prominent physicians have recently declared that the 'biological > facts' show that the unborn are living human beings. The doctors, including > two past presidents of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, > signed a statement aimed at SHIFTING THE FOCUS OF THE DEBATE AWAY FROM RELIGION > AND MAKING IT A BIOLOGICAL FACT. (italics mine) The statement says in part > that 'a human ovum fertilized by a human sperm produces a BIOLOGICALLY > IDENTIFIABLE (italics mine again,- Tanenbaum, et al take note!) human embryo. > That embryo contains all the essential biological material and genitic > information required for complete celular maturation, human tissue and organ > development." ---------------------------------- OK, I took note. Let's repeat the statement. "A human ovum fertilized by a human sperm produces a biologically identifiable human embryo. That embryo contains all the essential biological material and genetic information required for complete cellular maturation, human tissue and organ development." I agree! (Surprise!) However, it is still a matter of definition whether the embryo is a human being or merely a potential human being. It is also a matter of definition if the embryo is alive or not. Ken Arndt et. al. claim that the embryo is alive and is a human being. Rich Rosen et. al. claim the reverse. Both Arndt and Rosen claim that this justifies their positions on abortion. I think both are wrong. I think the definitions are irrelevant. In my opinion, we have a classic case of a choice of the lesser of two evils: 1)the destruction of an embryo 2)an unwanted pregnancy I personally fell, unlike some "pro-choicers", that the embryo does have an intrinsic value. However, to give it FULL human rights, as most "pro-lifers" desire, would make users of the IUD and other similar contraceptives premeditated murderers, subject to the death penalty in those jurisdictions that have one. I hope that Ken Arndt does not favor this. I think, however, that it does logically follow from giving full human rights to fetuses. Exactly what rights a fetus should have at what stage of development is one of those difficult issues that reasonable people can disagree on. I'll leave that one alone for now. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (08/20/85)
In article <1097@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: >In my opinion, we have a classic case of a choice of the lesser of two evils: >1)the destruction of an embryo >2)an unwanted pregnancy Exactly. An abortion is not a good thing. Neither is an unwanted pregnancy. But when you don't want to be pregnant and you take the precautions to prevent pregnancy, or don't take them out of ignorance, or are denied the opportunity, and you get pregnant anyway (or your wife does, or your daughter), what do you do? My opinion, for what it's worth, is that it depends on why you don't want to be pregnant. I would consider an abortion an acceptable alternative only if the pregnancy put my life in danger. I do not, however, expect everyone to accept my way of life. I do expect that, as reasonable, intelligent, and mature adults, (we are, aren't we? :-) ) we can reach a consensus of sorts. I would propose the following guidelines for the acceptability of abortion. Note, please, that they are not my personal guidelines. They are guidelines that I think would be widely (though not universally) acceptable. If you don't like them, note (without shouting, please!) *why* you disagree. Be reasonable. You might persuade me (or some other reasonable person) to change. Abortions are not acceptable: - for any reason, if there is a reasonable chance that the fetus, if delivered, would survive (i.e., last trimester). If the woman wishes to terminate the pregnancy during this time, she could have a competent physician induce delivery (by C-section, or whatever). The infant should then receive the same medical care as any other premature infant. If the mother does not want the child, it can be put up for adoption or placed in foster care. Justification: it seems unreasonable to destroy a fetus if you could nearly as easily allow it to survive - if the only reason for the abortion is that the child may be handicapped. Again, if the mother does not want the child, it can be put up for adoption or placed in foster care. Justification: I'm afraid of the logical extensions of a policy that allows the abortion of handicapped fetuses - the killing of handicapped newborns follows (and has already begun), and I see no logical or reasonable end. Abortions are acceptable: - if the pregnancy endangers the mother's life or long-term health Justification: it seems reasonable to take a life in order to save a life - if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest Justification: I have none, but rape and incest seem to be widely considered special cases, and I believe it would be impossible to gain a consensus without including this - before the fetus's central nervous system begins to function Justification: when a person's brain ceases to function, we consider them to be dead. It seems reasonable, therefore, that when a fetus's brain begins to function, we would consider it alive. This is certainly not an all-inclusive list of possibilities. It includes only those which I believe are suitable for a theoretical discussion (i.e., which are reasonably unambiguous and which seem possible to reach a consensus on). If anyone would like to add to either list (again, giving reasonable justification), please do. charli