jtc78@ihuxm.UUCP (Mike Cherepov) (11/01/84)
Someone's posting contains a statement that sounds like: "in 8 weeks an embryo becomes all it will ever be". That person is anti-abortionist, so the number should be pretty conservative. Anyway, during these 8 weeks an embyo apparently is not what it will ever be (has gills, other rudiments, practically no evidence of concience, because there's nothing to think with). Should all these things be an argument in favor of abandoning the blanket rejection of abortion, and trying to better determine the threshold? It looks like a simple corollary of the "8 weeks" (or whatever) statement. And remember, the statement was made by anti-abortionist. Not too many people out there who would object against aborting a 1-week old embryo can find good arguments to support that position, and that implies that some thresold SHOULD be determined. Currently it is set at 26? weeks. Question: where do you set your threshold, people? Explain if it is 0.0 (although that also requires clarification). Mike Cherepov
andrews@uiucdcsb.UUCP (11/03/84)
That is a good question. At what point does a fetus become a child? As I can see no definite "transition point" I have to say that point is at conception. Brad Andrews
yali@utai.UUCP (Yawar Ali) (11/07/84)
> That is a good question. At what point does a fetus become a child? > As I can see no definite "transition point" I have to say that point is > at conception. > > Brad Andrews So, the claim is that at the moment of conception the zygote "becomes a child". Presumably, by this Mr. Andrews means that the fertilized egg should be regarded as a Person, in the legal sense of the term. This suggestion is open to numerous objections. Firstly, the "transition point", as he calls it, is by no means very definite in the case of fertilization. At what point is one to conclude that an egg has been successfully fertilized, and at what point can one definitely conclude that an egg is "safe" from the attack of those nasty spermatozoa that may have been unleashed upon it at some time in the past? Secondly, if at some point it becomes possible to determine that a particular egg *has* indeed been fertilized, the viability of the zygote with regard to its future development and continued survival is by no means assured. Given all these uncertainties, it seems rather silly to insist that the newly-formed union of two reproductive cells be granted personhood, in the same sense that its parents are Persons. On the one hand, we deny this status to most animal species, other than our own, yet Mr. Andrews would want to confer it upon the zygote, merely because it has the potential to eventually develop into a human being, assuming that all goes well, of course. But, if we are to be such reductionists, why stop at zygotes? It is but one short step further along this line of argument to grant personhood to free (non-united) gametes. The mind boggles! Surely, a more sensible approach is to try to form some "reasonable" criteria as to when a fetus is likely to be able to survive outside the womb, and use this as a basis for developing policies on abortion, legal matters, and the like. Remember, the (possibly!) mother-to-be has rights too! Yawar Ali Dept. of Computer Science Univ. of Toronto { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!utai!yali >>>>> What is the transition point where my body ends and yours begins??? <<<<<
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (11/07/84)
[] >That is a good question. At what point does a fetus become a child? >As I can see no definite "transition point" I have to say that point is >at conception. > > Brad Andrews Why is conception a 'definite "transition point"'? Conception is not an atomic event. It is, rather, a fairly long process with several stages, notably (medical people please correct me if I'm remembering this wrongly) penetration of the ovum by the nucleus of a sperm cell, migration of the sperm nucleus through the ovum's cytoplasm to the ovum's nucleus, the merging of the two nuclei and the subsequent meiosis, and finally the ejection of the polar body (which contains the other *full set* of genes which, except in *very rare* cases, does not develop into an embryo). At what exact point in the above process is the new person formed? Exactly what is it (physically, not philosophically) about the newly- fertilized ovum that allows one to identify it as a person? -- "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" Ken Montgomery ...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]
brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson) (11/07/84)
X? From: andrews@uiucdcsb.UUCP
X? That is a good question. At what point does a fetus become a child?
X? As I can see no definite "transition point" I have to say that point is
X? at conception.
X? Brad Andrews
If I can not "see" a "definite" transition point between childhood and
adulthood, does that mean that every person is an adult?
(I refer you to the discussion on inductive logic in some other group.
Someone offered what they thought was a correct use of induction.
They said: if a pile of sand with only one grain is small, and adding
one grain of sand to a small pile of sand produces a pile which also
is small, then by induction, all piles of sand are small.
There are very obvious flaws in the sand argument, and also in the
child/fetus argument. For a starter, you might do something sensible
like use a dictionary...)
You can see no definite transition point. Have you heard of "birth"?
It is a transition, and it is plainly definite. If you think that
birth shouldn't be used as a decision-point of where a developing
homo-sapiens is worth saving, then you MUST tell us what you think is
the difference between one worth saving, and one ok to prevent.
If you don't tell us, you are merely flaming in the darkness
of your own mind.
Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianp
^ ^