twiss@stolaf.UUCP (Thomas S. Twiss) (11/13/84)
This is a classic problem in the abortion debate. It seems ridiculous to
me to try and say that human life begins at the moment of conception. I am
unable (in my mind) to extend citizenship and rights to two cells. I would
rather say that such an entity is POTENTIAL life, i.e. it has the potential of
developing into a human being, but it is not yet an autonomous, independent,
relatively self sufficient creature. But if we say that destroying potential
life is illegal, then all other forms of potential life must fall under these
rubricks. IUD's (as discussed earlier) prevent potential life, other birth
control forms do the same, male masturbation wastes thousands of potential
lives every time (Hitler eat your heart out!), and for that matter, while
we're outlawing the destruction of all this potential life, we better outlaw
female ovulation because every woman murders 12 innocent potential people
every year!
[sarcasm off]
The point is that we must think very carefully before making
a purely emotive judgement on this subject. We can't always follow what we
think is the "ideal" path. We must think realistically. It is impossible
for me to think of a zygote as a human being fully protected under the law,
fully recognized as an independent entity, and one that can support its own
existence. Now of course some of you may argue that an infant is also
dependent and not autonomous. Well, dependent on others for physical needs
(food, protection, shelter, etc.) but it is not BIOLOGICALLY dependent on
another's body for existence as a zygote is. I would prefer (if I have to
make a choice) to call an embryo a human when it is capable of existing
outside the womb. At this point it has ceased to be an attachment to the
female and has achieved at least a modicum of independence.
--
Tom Twiss @ St. Olaf College
{decvax|ihnp4}!stolaf!twiss
"If the Paradox and the Reason come together in a mutual understanding
of their unlikeliness their encounter will be happy..."
-Soren Kierkegaardjohnston@spp1.UUCP (11/28/84)
> > This is a classic problem in the abortion debate. It seems ridiculous to > me to try and say that human life begins at the moment of conception. I am > unable (in my mind) to extend citizenship and rights to two cells. Are we talking about life or citizenship? It seems the basic protection of a person's life should extend beyond citzenship. With regards to your inability to extend rights, this is the basic problem in the issue. We have set up ourselves to play with another's life just because we can't comprehend it as such. In other words, another's life must measure up to a standard. This is the basic premise of bigotry. >I would >rather say that such an entity is POTENTIAL life, i.e. it has the potential of > developing into a human being, but it is not yet an autonomous, independent, > relatively self sufficient creature. But if we say that destroying potential > life is illegal, then all other forms of potential life must fall under these > rubricks. IUD's (as discussed earlier) prevent potential life, other birth > control forms do the same, male masturbation wastes thousands of potential > lives every time (Hitler eat your heart out!), and for that matter, while > we're outlawing the destruction of all this potential life, we better outlaw > female ovulation because every woman murders 12 innocent potential people > every year! Please. You need a refresher course in biology. A male sperm or female egg will sit forever, doing nothing, no matter what kind of environment you provide. This is called potential??? Whereas, a fertilized egg will, if provided with the proper environment, produce a human being. You have a point with the IUD (no pun) since this does prevent a fretilized egg from being implanted into the uterine wall and you might even mention that in the case of twins, several days (4 or 5) elapse before the twos sets of cells separate. To avoid useless arguments, I'm willing to give the fetus a week before it can be said that there is an implanted set of cells which left alone will develop into a human being. BUt remember, a woman will not suspect she is pregnant for at least two weeks and what with pregnancy tests and appointment schedules, she couldn't gat an abortion until she is at least 4 weeks along. In fact, the average abortion is done at ten weeks, a point past when all the vital organs have developed and working. (References available) > > [sarcasm off] > > The point is that we must think very carefully before making > a purely emotive judgement on this subject. We can't always follow what we > think is the "ideal" path. We must think realistically. It is impossible > for me to think of a zygote as a human being fully protected under the law, > fully recognized as an independent entity, and one that can support its own > existence. Now of course some of you may argue that an infant is also > dependent and not autonomous. Well, dependent on others for physical needs > (food, protection, shelter, etc.) but it is not BIOLOGICALLY dependent on > another's body for existence as a zygote is. Again, that refresher course. The human fetus is dependent on the mother for the same needs as the infant you mentioned: food, protection, and shelter. The fetus is NOT dependent biologically. A misconception you MAY be working under is that the fetus and the mother share the same blood. This simply is not true. The blood systems are not even connected. In fact, the blood types are more than likely different. Also the immune systems are independent. A pregnant woman provides no more for a fetus than a new mother. Warmth and protection are provided in one case by a house, crib, blankets, and holding and in the other case by a sealed, cushioned sac filled with a warm amniotic fluid. Food is provided for infants by a bottle or breast and in uterine, by the woman's blood as a nutrient carrier. Oxygen is free for infants since its in the air. Exposure to air would be detrimental to the fetus, thus the enclosed sac, but again the mother's blood provides this essential need. >I would prefer (if I have to > make a choice) to call an embryo a human when it is capable of existing > outside the womb. At this point it has ceased to be an attachment to the > female and has achieved at least a modicum of independence. > -- > > Tom Twiss @ St. Olaf College > {decvax|ihnp4}!stolaf!twiss You must be aware of the prematue deliveries that have taken place at around the 5 month age satisfying your criteria of being a human. I don't see how you also can't be aware of some of the ages of late term abortions. Try around 7 to 8 months. The problem with establishing a date when a fetus is viable is that it is bound to be disproved with the advance of medical technology. Mike Johnston
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (11/30/84)
>A pregnant woman provides no more for a fetus than a new mother. Warmth >and protection are provided in one case by a house, crib, blankets, and >holding and in the other case by a sealed, cushioned sac filled with a >warm amniotic fluid. Food is provided for infants by a bottle or breast and >in uterine, by the woman's blood as a nutrient carrier. Oxygen is free for >infants since its in the air. Exposure to air would be detrimental to the >fetus, thus the enclosed sac, but again the mother's blood provides this >essential need. What a wonderful way to look at pregnancy!! just a sealed cushioned sac! it is all so clean, easy and carefree!! a woman who refuse to provide such an essential service, which is so easy for her to give, must obvioulsy be a monster! what a nice way of looking at the way from the fetus' point of view! maybe the fetus only receives "warmth and protection" from the woman's body, and nutrients through her blood, but the mother ends up giving much more: the work that is needed for her body to accomodate another being inside it, and to transform food into the nutrients that the fetus will receive. A lot of this work results in quite a bit of misconfort for the woman involved. Women are NOT PASSIVE recipients in which little babies grow!!!!! Their bodies do a LOT of WORK for the 9 months during which it is providing what the fetus needs to develop. Of course, this doesn't even start to talk about other things that women that women give for pregnancy. These things obviously vary greatly from woman to woman, but at best can be nothing, and at worst, a great loss of mobility and economic comfort (at a time when if money is certainly needed!) or loss of opportunities to do other things they might prefer to do, and even some times great physical discomforts. Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (11/30/84)
[] >[Mike Johnston] >A pregnant woman provides no more for a fetus than a new mother. Warmth >and protection are provided in one case by a house, crib, blankets, and >holding and in the other case by a sealed, cushioned sac filled with a >warm amniotic fluid. Food is provided for infants by a bottle or breast and >in uterine, by the woman's blood as a nutrient carrier. Oxygen is free for >infants since its in the air. Exposure to air would be detrimental to the >fetus, thus the enclosed sac, but again the mother's blood provides this >essential need. Being provided with shelter by *someone else's* body is one H*LL of a lot more that being provided a crib, etc.! Drinking out of a bottle and breathing the atmosphere are very different from pulling nutrients and oxygen direct from *someone else's* bloodstream! -- "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" Ken Montgomery ...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]
johnston@spp1.UUCP (12/04/84)
> > >A pregnant woman provides no more for a fetus than a new mother. Warmth > >and protection are provided in one case by a house, crib, blankets, and > >holding and in the other case by a sealed, cushioned sac filled with a > >warm amniotic fluid. Food is provided for infants by a bottle or breast and > >in uterine, by the woman's blood as a nutrient carrier. Oxygen is free for > >infants since its in the air. Exposure to air would be detrimental to the > >fetus, thus the enclosed sac, but again the mother's blood provides this > >essential need. > > What a wonderful way to look at pregnancy!! just a sealed cushioned sac! > it is all so clean, easy and carefree!! a woman who refuse to provide > such an essential service, which is so easy for her to give, must obvioulsy > be a monster! > Sophie Quigley > ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley Any conclusions you draw that I didn't are your own. The reason for the posting was not to discuss the relative merits of pregnancy and motherhood but to refute an earlier posting claiming the fetus was biologically dependent on its mother. I certainly agree that a pregnancy is work and involves a lot of miscomfort and inconvenience but so does having to slam on your brakes when a child jumps in front of your car. The analogy is not really that good, however, since the child is responsible for placing himself in that predicament, wheras the fetus had no choice. But, as in this case and abortion, we can't allow ourselves to follow the natural tendency for comfort, convenience, and lessening of work when another's life is at stake. Mike Johnston
johnston@spp1.UUCP (12/04/84)
> > Being provided with shelter by *someone else's* body is one H*LL of a > lot more that being provided a crib, etc.! Drinking out of a bottle > and breathing the atmosphere are very different from pulling nutrients > and oxygen direct from *someone else's* bloodstream! > > -- > "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" > Ken Montgomery > ...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] > kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only] I don't see how they're very different. If you look at the sidelines of most professional football games you see very alive people pulling in oxygen from a tank and intravenous feedings are commonplace. How a person obtains nutrients and oxygen does not make that person dependent on the source and the reason for the original posting was to refute a statement on the fetus's alledged biological dependence on the mother. Thanks for supporting my statement. Mike Johnston
cdshaw@watmath.UUCP (Chris Shaw) (12/07/84)
> > > > Being provided with shelter by *someone else's* body is one H*LL of a > > lot more that being provided a crib, etc.! Drinking out of a bottle > > and breathing the atmosphere are very different from pulling nutrients > > and oxygen direct from *someone else's* bloodstream! > > -- > > Ken Montgomery > > I don't see how they're very different. If you look at the sidelines of most > professional football games you see very alive people pulling in oxygen > from a tank and intravenous feedings are commonplace. How a person obtains > nutrients and oxygen does not make that person dependent on the source and > the reason for the original posting was to refute a statement on the > fetus's alledged biological dependence on the mother. > > Mike Johnston BOGUS BOGUS BOGUS ....... as BOGUS approaches aleph-37 infinity !!!! I defy you, "Mike Johnston", to cut the umbilical cord of any unborn less than 6 months from conception and let it live by oxygen tank & intravenous alone. The FACT remains, despite your concentratedly intense wanderings in mindless dreamland, that a fetus in (say) the first trimester is TOTALLY AND UTTERLY dependent on the host organism (i.e., mother). No giving of stupid examples about football players with gas masks changes this unalterable fact. So stop wasting my time with this inane dumbness about a fetus being bologically independent of its mother. If the mother dies, the fetus dies, and that is all there is to that !!!! In fact, if you want to get biological, there is no form of biological relationship more dependent that between mother and fetus! Why, if a fetus were biologically independent, mother could consume heroin, thalidomide and marijuana 3 times a day in massive quantities for 9 solid months during pregnancy and the baby would be as healthy as the child of an Amish woman who took great care of herself. And as far as this nonsense being bandied about the net in regard to baby not sharing genetic material with mom & dad is concerned, the reader is directed to consign those articles to the trashbin. Again, the screamingly obvious counter-example will suffice. Is the race of a person controlled by genes ?? --Yes!! How about eye colour ? --again yes. Therefore, if a white man impregnates a white woman, what colour will the child be ? --white, of course! Obviously, the child is completely dependent of mom & dad for the genetic makeup. After all, where else would junior's genes come from, Levi's? Leaving 'til the stupidity filter gets ported to unix, I remain CD Shaw
cjk@ccice2.UUCP (Kreilick) (12/07/84)
> > Any conclusions you draw that I didn't are your own. NO, you're wrong about that. Any conclusions are those of TRUTH! YES, we have returned to guide and inspire along the correct path. >The reason for the > posting was not to discuss the relative merits of pregnancy and motherhood > but to refute an earlier posting claiming the fetus was biologically > dependent on its mother. YES, this is the solution to abortion. No mother may carry a child that is biologically dependant on her. > I certainly agree that a pregnancy is work and > involves a lot of miscomfort and inconvenience but so does having to slam > on your brakes when a child jumps in front of your car. WHAT about a cat? > The analogy is not > really that good, however, since the child is responsible for placing > himself in that predicament, wheras the fetus had no choice. > > But, as in this case and abortion, we can't allow ourselves to follow > the natural tendency for comfort, convenience, and lessening of work when > another's life is at stake. > > Mike Johnston Just like firemen who must sweat terribly in heavy rubber suits. TRUTH
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (12/08/84)
> How a person obtains > nutrients and oxygen does not make that person dependent on the source and > the reason for the original posting was to refute a statement on the > fetus's alledged biological dependence on the mother. > > Thanks for supporting my statement. > > Mike Johnston Well, then if this is the case, then why is it not possible for ALL fetuses to survive outside of their mother's womb? Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley
johnston@spp1.UUCP (12/10/84)
> > > > > > Being provided with shelter by *someone else's* body is one H*LL of a > > > lot more that being provided a crib, etc.! Drinking out of a bottle > > > and breathing the atmosphere are very different from pulling nutrients > > > and oxygen direct from *someone else's* bloodstream! > > > -- > > > Ken Montgomery > > > > I don't see how they're very different. If you look at the sidelines of most > > professional football games you see very alive people pulling in oxygen > > from a tank and intravenous feedings are commonplace. How a person obtains > > nutrients and oxygen does not make that person dependent on the source and > > the reason for the original posting was to refute a statement on the > > fetus's alledged biological dependence on the mother. > > > > Mike Johnston > > BOGUS BOGUS BOGUS ....... as BOGUS approaches aleph-37 infinity !!!! > > I defy you, "Mike Johnston", to cut the umbilical cord of any unborn less > than 6 months from conception and let it live by oxygen tank & intravenous > alone. > I wouldn't dare, since I'm not qualified. But I don't need to since it's been done already. If you insist I'll provide facts gladly concerning the birth of a boy who must be in his teens by now. He was born prematurely at 20 WEEKS. Of course he needed an oxygen tent but live he did. The trouble with setting a time like you did arbitrarily is that not only can that time be violated (as it did without you being aware of it) but as we advance further medically there doesn't seem to be a limit. Many people swore at one time it was humanly impossible to run a mile in less than four minutes. > The FACT remains, despite your concentratedly intense wanderings in mindless > dreamland, that a fetus in (say) the first trimester is TOTALLY AND UTTERLY > dependent on the host organism (i.e., mother). No giving of stupid examples > about football players with gas masks changes this unalterable fact. Let me first express my sadness tht issues can't be discussed without resorting to insults. There is such a temptation to respond in kind but I'm reminded that anyone can do so but not all are possible of expressing their views clearly and reasonably without undercutting their opponents. I prefer to sharpen my skills in the latter mode and just swallow hard. My point was biological dependence not nurturing. And again there is no baby alive today who is not dependent on someone for nurturing. > > So stop wasting my time with this inane dumbness about a fetus being > bologically independent of its mother. If the mother dies, the fetus dies, > and that is all there is to that !!!! > We must be disagreeeing on what biological dependence means. Biological dependence means being dependent on certain biological processes of the mother not the dependence on food, warmth, and shelter. If a mother dies as she is alone with her child in a forest, the child will certainly die. > In fact, if you want to get biological, there is no form of biological > relationship more dependent that between mother and fetus! Why, if a fetus > were biologically independent, mother could consume heroin, thalidomide and > marijuana 3 times a day in massive quantities for 9 solid months during > pregnancy and the baby would be as healthy as the child of an Amish woman > who took great care of herself. > If a nursing mother were to do the same with her born child, the child would certainly have impaired health. Maybe this whole disagreement is based on askew definitions. Do you, per chance, consider a live born baby biologically dependent on anyone. > And as far as this nonsense being bandied about the net in regard to > baby not sharing genetic material with mom & dad is concerned, the reader > is directed to consign those articles to the trashbin. Again, the screamingly > obvious counter-example will suffice. Is the race of a person controlled by > genes ?? --Yes!! How about eye colour ? --again yes. Therefore, if a white > man impregnates a white woman, what colour will the child be ? --white, of > course! Obviously, the child is completely dependent of mom & dad for the > genetic makeup. After all, where else would junior's genes come from, Levi's? > > > Leaving 'til the stupidity filter gets ported to unix, > > I remain > CD Shaw No one I've heard is refuting that a fetus shares genetic material with its parents. This isn't spontaneous generation. The point is that a fetus's genetic makeup is absolutely unique. It is not the same as either parent. Many would have you believe that a fetus was nothing more than a growth of cells attached to the mother. If this were the case, its genetic makeup would be identical to the mother. Mike Johnston
johnston@spp1.UUCP (12/10/84)
> > How a person obtains > > nutrients and oxygen does not make that person dependent on the source and > > the reason for the original posting was to refute a statement on the > > fetus's alledged biological dependence on the mother. > > > > Thanks for supporting my statement. > > > > Mike Johnston > > Well, then if this is the case, then why is it not possible for ALL fetuses > to survive outside of their mother's womb? > > Sophie Quigley > ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley The age at which a fetus can survive outside the womb has lowered and there is every indication that, as we advance in neonatology, this will be lowered still. The original question wasn't one of dependence per se. All children are dependent.
cjk@ccice2.UUCP (Kreilick) (12/16/84)
> > How a person obtains > > nutrients and oxygen does not make that person dependent on the source and > > the reason for the original posting was to refute a statement on the > > fetus's alledged biological dependence on the mother. > > > > Thanks for supporting my statement. > > > > Mike Johnston > > Well, then if this is the case, then why is it not possible for ALL fetuses > to survive outside of their mother's womb? > > Sophie Quigley > ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley Sophie, Allow me to set you straight. All fetuses can survive outside their mothers' wombs. Mike Johnston is an example of one that did, free from all nutrients and oxygen. Aspiring Presidential Candidate -- Amphibian Stomper