tan@iwu1d.UUCP (William Tanenbaum) (04/29/84)
May I respectfully suggest that the question whether the fetus is a human being be moved to a new and more appropriate newsgroup, called net.etymology, net.lexicography, or even better yet, net.how_many_angels_can_dance_on_the_head_of_a_pin. The question is clearly equivalent to "Is a horse embryo a horse or not?" Many people (on both sides of the abortion question) seem to take questions like this seriously, as if scientific evidence will some day decide. Unfortunately, many of these people write reams of articles which clutter up net.abortion, and make it hard to find the articles (again on both sides of the abortion question) which discuss the real issues. Can you people not see that the question is solely a matter of definition? The real question is: "Should the human fetus (or embryo, or even fertilized egg) be guaranteed the same level of protection under the law as are born human beings?" Or perhaps "At what stage in human development should the human organism begin to enjoy full protection under the law?" The standard "right-to-life" argument goes something like this: 1) The fetus is a human being from the moment of conception. 2) Killing a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus via abortion is thus destroying a (innocent) human being. 3) Intentionally killing any innocent human being should legally be considered murder. 4) Abortion should therefore be legally considered murder. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that I accept item 1). Since it is merely a matter of definiton, why not? Item 2 then indeed does follow immediately. But item 4) does not! This is because I can choose to reject item 3) if human being is so defined as to include fertilized eggs, embryos or fetuses. Now, the "right-to-lifers" can ask the valid question "If you can exclude fetuses from such protection, why not infants, old people, etc." They can also raise valid points like "The fetus has a developed brain and nervous system at X weeks." The "pro-choicers" can counter with arguments about the mother's welfare, etc. These are the sort of real issues that should, and to some extent are, being discussed in this newsgroup. But saying that abortion is murder because the fetus is a human being, or conversely, saying that abortion is O.K. because the fetus is not a human being, is utterly meaningless. I do not think that such an important issue as abortion should be decided by lexicographers. Bill Tanenbaum
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (04/30/84)
I thought of reviewing the articles on my machine to see whether there
actually was a preponderance of news items characterizing abortion as
"murder", but thought better of it once I realized the size of the
undertaking. But, I don't think that this phrase has cropped up too often.
In any event, it is a red flag phrase worth eliminating from this discussion.
As to a fetus' "humanity", well, your restatement is operationally much more
useful, at least for those without religious beliefs, but you surely should
realize that the word "human" has more connotations that strictly species
identification. To say that a horse embryo is a horse is NOT the same as
saying a human embryo is human. That is, to claim that a being is "human"
means precisely what you rephrase: that it has the rights that we endow to all
our fellow humans (and, for religious believers, a soul.) So, what's the beef?
Oh, as long as we're dismissing arguments, this whole bit about fetuses
feeling pain strikes me as completely irrelevant to a discussion of the ethics
of abortion qua abortion, as well as being on philosophically shaky ground.
If we are suddenly aligning with the anti-vivisectionists to request abortions
less "painful" to the fetus, then it is probably worth some discussion.
But I suspect that most of us are concerned with more basic issues.
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA