rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (12/12/84)
[The ideas & examples below are from a talk by historian of science Stephen Jay Gould on "Boundaries & Classification in Science" given 12/11/84 at BBN. ] Many people on both sides of the abortion controversy think the point at which life begins can be determined. Many of these probably expect an answer to be forthcoming eventually from science. But the question "When does life begin?" is a bad question, because it has NO ANSWER, or least none that's remotely meaningful for the human issue [no pun intended] of abortion. Science can NEVER provide the kind of answer desired. Life BEGINS biologically at spermatogenesis & ovulation & continues thru fertilization and embryonic development on a continuum that has no biolo- gical breakpoints that correspond to those that any MORAL (or human) idea life either pre- or post-natal requires. If pro-lifers really mean to use a biological criterion (life) for their morality, then "masturbation is murder". To emphasize the gulf between nature & (traditional) human/moral concep- tions of it, consider the following: are Siamese twins two persons or one? What if one two heads share much or all of one body? Or if one head possesses two complete but connected bodies? We want to force an answer: two heads, two persons; one head, one. Yet there is one under- lying embryological process which produces these varying results, and the difference in outcomes isn't significant embryologically: the split- ting merely began at different ends. As products of the same process there's strong biological reason to consider both forms of twinning as the same kind of entity. The answer to the individuality question is probably there's no answer: Siamese twins sharing much of a body are both distinct individuals & the same individual, maybe a "super-individual". Our idea of individual person breaks down in the face of this natural phenomenon and fails to describe or classify it. [What follows is my own opinion.] A morality (ie, traditional human notions) which claims to base itself on nature is doomed to absurdity in the face of phenomena like Siamese twins, colonial sea organisms, the facts of embryology, etc., etc. It seems to me that the political phenomenon which is the anti-abortion movement is due primarily to the preposterous Roman Catholic idea of "natural law", which is really a relic of prescientific thought. Morality is a human matter, external to & imposed on nature (& human experience which is part of nature), & necessarily somewhat arbitrary with respect to it. Appeals to nature actually corrupt ethics. Given that, moral issues, like abortion, ought to be decided on criteria that are the most important & meaningful for human beings & their lives as we know them. Fetuses may be complex organisms & biologically alive, but it doesn't easily follow that, just because of that, they are human. Cheers, Ron Rizzo P.S. I don't mean to attack anyone's faith (though theology is poorly served by the idea of "natural law"). I do want to shake people up & out of the presumption that nature provides corroboration for morality.
johnston@spp1.UUCP (12/13/84)
> ... > Given that, moral issues, like abortion, ought to be decided on criteria > that are the most important & meaningful for human beings & their lives > as we know them. Fetuses may be complex organisms & biologically alive, > but it doesn't easily follow that, just because of that, they are human. > > > Cheers, > Ron Rizzo > I'm a little confused. In the first sentence is a phrase "human beings & their lives". I've always assummed that I was a member of this class. Yet I find from the second sentence that while a fetus, though complex and alive, I may not have been human. Since I don't recall passing an acceptance test, I'm beginning to get worried. If there is criteria for becoming a human from a complex, biologically alive organism of homo sapiens, I'd better apply. After all, I've been lying on my resume. Mike Johnston
brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson) (12/16/84)
XY From: johnston@spp1.UUCP
XY > ...
XY > Given that, moral issues, like abortion, ought to be decided on criteria
XY > that are the most important & meaningful for human beings & their lives
XY > as we know them. Fetuses may be complex organisms & biologically alive,
XY > but it doesn't easily follow that, just because of that, they are human.
XY > Cheers,
XY > Ron Rizzo
XY
XY I'm a little confused. In the first sentence is a phrase "human beings &
XY their lives". I've always assummed that I was a member of this class. Yet
XY I find from the second sentence that while a fetus, though complex and
XY alive, I may not have been human. Since I don't recall passing an
XY acceptance test, I'm beginning to get worried. If there is criteria for
XY becoming a human from a complex, biologically alive organism of homo
XY sapiens, I'd better apply. After all, I've been lying on my resume.
XY Mike Johnston
I think you are more than a little confused; you seem to have missed
the whole point.
If you metabolize, etc. then you are a life.
If you have the right type of DNA, you are of the species homo-sapiens.
Now, let us suppose that someone took a spoon and stirred your
cerebrum (or was it cerebelum?) and you were no MORE
than a metabolizing entity with the right type of DNA.
There is now something missing.
That something is what we (Ron Rizzo up there, and I, at least)
are talking about.
Life (metabolizing, etc) is no more relevant to what we are than
hardware is to a particular program being run.
A particular set of DNA is no more important than a random
molecule of oxygen, or a random configuration of a Rubik's cube,
simply because there are so many of them. They only are useful
as quantities.
What we are is something more abstract than life or DNA.
A fetus has nothing more than life and DNA, both of negligible
value as a particular instance.
Now, this something that we are does not get given to us,
especially not at a marked point. Neither are there
simpleton tests that make binary decisions on whether you
have this (intentionally left vague in this article) quality.
Yet it is obvious to all that there is this something, a
characteristic which sets us beyond most other animals
on this planet, and beyond those vegetables which happen
to still have homo-sapiens DNA in them.
It is this characteristic which is important, which
fetuses don't have, and which anti-abortionists seem
to have no concerns for.
Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianp
^ ^johnston@spp1.UUCP (12/18/84)
> XY From: johnston@spp1.UUCP > XY > ... > XY > Given that, moral issues, like abortion, ought to be decided on criteria > XY > that are the most important & meaningful for human beings & their lives > XY > as we know them. Fetuses may be complex organisms & biologically alive, > XY > but it doesn't easily follow that, just because of that, they are human. > XY > Cheers, > XY > Ron Rizzo > XY > XY I'm a little confused. In the first sentence is a phrase "human beings & > XY their lives". I've always assummed that I was a member of this class. Yet > XY I find from the second sentence that while a fetus, though complex and > XY alive, I may not have been human. Since I don't recall passing an > XY acceptance test, I'm beginning to get worried. If there is criteria for > XY becoming a human from a complex, biologically alive organism of homo > XY sapiens, I'd better apply. After all, I've been lying on my resume. > XY Mike Johnston > > I think you are more than a little confused; you seem to have missed > the whole point. > If you metabolize, etc. then you are a life. > If you have the right type of DNA, you are of the species homo-sapiens. > Now, let us suppose that someone took a spoon and stirred your > cerebrum (or was it cerebelum?) and you were no MORE > than a metabolizing entity with the right type of DNA. I don't know how you define metabolism. To me it is the summation of all the processes in an organism by which material is input and energy is produced and that working together provide a coordinated working system ,ie. an organism. Your situation of destroyed brain cells doesn't fit my definition. You can continue to use your definition of metabolism of course, but you are also calling it life, giving no reason for the equation. > There is now something missing. > That something is what we (Ron Rizzo up there, and I, at least) > are talking about. > Life (metabolizing, etc) is no more relevant to what we are than > hardware is to a particular program being run. > A particular set of DNA is no more important than a random > molecule of oxygen, or a random configuration of a Rubik's cube, > simply because there are so many of them. They only are useful > as quantities. > What we are is something more abstract than life or DNA. > A fetus has nothing more than life and DNA, both of negligible > value as a particular instance. > I suppose nothing really can be discussed between us if at the basic premises, you believe life has no value. This alone explains all your statements. And you are consistent with your beliefs. > Now, this something that we are does not get given to us, > especially not at a marked point. If we have it all, yet it is not given to us, then we must have had it all along. My point precisely. >Neither are there > simpleton tests that make binary decisions on whether you > have this (intentionally left vague in this article) quality. > Yet it is obvious to all that there is this something, a > characteristic which sets us beyond most other animals > on this planet, and beyond those vegetables which happen > to still have homo-sapiens DNA in them. > It is this characteristic which is important, which > fetuses don't have, and which anti-abortionists seem > to have no concerns for. > > Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianp > ^ ^ For something vague, with no tests as to whether you have it, with no one sure when we get it, not given to us, yet CONCLUSIVELY fetuses don't have it,... ????? Mike Johnston