jc@inmet.UUCP (04/21/84)
#N:inmet:22500001:000:1813
inmet!jc Apr 19 14:51:00 1984
[This line intentionally left nonblank]
Hey, why are you people all restricting yourself to aborting fetuses?
What about the poor unfertilized ovum? Isn't it human? Doesn't it
have rights?
First, it is obvious that an ovum is alive. Presumably there's no
question here. If there is, you've got a real problem!
Second, it is human. At least, if it came out of a human ovary, it is.
You don't believe this? OK, then, what species is it? A frog, perhaps?
Or maybe a begonia? No, it's clearly human. All 23 chromosomes plus
surrounding cytoplasm, mitochondria, and assorted membranes are human.
Since an ovum is a living, human creature, clearly it is our moral duty
to protect its life. This obviously means fertilizing it; it'll die if
we don't.
Now, I'm not claiming that a woman who ovulates and fails (or even worse,
refuses) to have it fertilized is guilty of murder. I believe the term
is "negligent homicide" or "criminal negligence" or something like that.
Similar to if you get out of your car with the engine running, it slips
into gear, and it runs down a child. Not that you intentionally killed
someone; you just took actions that incidentally led to a death which
you could have prevented.
Surely our moral guardians have thought this one over by now, but somehow
I've missed their explanations. How about somebody enlightening me?
At the same time, we should consider sperm, which are clearly also living,
human creatures. Unfortunately, there's about a billion of them for each
ovum. I don't see how any responsible creator could have set it up this
way, so that 99.9999999% of all humans are doomed to death at the sperm
stage of their development. Perhaps a theology student can explain this
one to me?
John M Chambers [inmet!jc]kenn@sdccsu3.UUCP (04/23/84)
[] Right. So what about all the bacterium that is constantly dying inside our bodies? Our blood cells? Our white blood cells that are dying because we were criminally neligent to walk into a room with a sneezing person. Your article hardly deserves a reply. (signature for tradition only) Kenn the Kenf ...!sdcsvax!kenn ...!sdcsvax!sdccs6!ix192 ...!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!kenn
owens@gatech.UUCP (Gerald R. Owens) (04/23/84)
<food> Mr. chambers does not need a theo student to explain why we shouldn't consider an ovum on the same level as a zygote. It's simple biology: an ovum has only HALF the number of cromosomes to develop a human being, and inherently cannot develop as a human being on its own. It is certainly of human origin, and is certainly alive, but ALL humans have 46 cromosomes, and the pro-life people are apparently saying that that is what defines humanity. Therefore, they oppose the forcible termination of a NATURALLY developing human being that had nothing to do with the circumstances that got a spermazoon to that ovum. If religion MUST be admitted into the argument, then one finds that although there are differences on how valuable one views life in general, human beings rank at the top in the majority of them, with plant life clearly allowed as food. None, to my knowledge, considers half-human cells like spermazoa or ova, to be on the same status, although there may be some tribe somewhere that does. Mr. Chambers may presume to speak for the Gods, but I doubt it :-). By the way, it has been mentioned in earlier articles that the pill does not prevent fertilization, but prevents implantation of the already fertilized egg in the lining of the uterus. This, indeed, is a VERY pertinent point, and if a pro-lifer truly believes that humanity is determined that early, then they shouldn't use the pill. Does anyone know if the IUD works the same way? (I think it does, but I'm not sure) This suggests that barrier methods should be used. Also, if I remember my biology correctly, the ovum allows only ONE spermazoon to fertilize it, erecting some sort of barrier to prevent the others from adding too many genes the moment one DOES penetrate it. I am wondering if some sort of enzyme or protein could be concocted to make the ovum erect the barrier and thus prevent fertilization using it's own devices. Any ideas? Gerald Owens Owens@gatech
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (04/24/84)
> Mr. chambers does not need a theo student to explain why we shouldn't > consider an ovum on the same level as a zygote. It's simple biology: an > ovum has only HALF the number of cromosomes to develop a human being, and > inherently cannot develop as a human being on its own. It is certainly > of human origin, and is certainly alive, but ALL humans have 46 cromosomes, What an arbitrary distinction!!! Just as bogus as saying "because a fetus needs the mother's womb to grow and survive to live on its own, it's not living". Hopelessly arbitrary distinctions... :-) You realize that if ova are given human rights, spermatazoa should have the same rights (no sex discrimination here!). In either case, it would make menstruation and masturbation ("spilling seed") capital crimes. (Could a woman then use pre-menstrual syndrome as a defense?:-) [OK, so it wasn't funny...] -- "I'm not dead yet!" "Oh, don't be such a baby!" Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (04/25/84)
The position taken by many pro-lifers (especially Catholic) is
to state that we cannot know when the embryo becomes uniquely 'human'.
At best, it becomes an exercise akin to discussing how many angels
can dance on the head of a pin. But, because human life is precious
to us, and we certainly know what is not-human (the unfertilized egg),
the conservative approach is to treat the fertilized egg and all subsequent
morphologies as if it were human.
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPAwalsh@ihuxi.UUCP (B. Walsh) (04/26/84)
There have been a couple of articles here that state that the pill does not prevent development or fertilization of an egg, but only prevents a zygote from implanting in the uterus. I don't know where these people get their pills or what their pills are made of; I never heard of such a pill. The common birth control pill of estrogen and progesterone and even the mini pill PREVENTS development of the egg in the first place. No egg, no fertilization, no zygote to implant. The endocrine feedback system from ovary to pituitary is 'fooled'; the presence of estrogen prevent the pituitary from producing lutenizing hormone and the presence of progesterone prevents the pituitary from producing Follicle Stimulating Hormone that causes an egg to develop. Where did this other view develop? B. Walsh
walsh@ihuxi.UUCP (B. Walsh) (04/26/84)
Please explain to me how less estrogen and progesterone (of the modern pill) suddenly no longer prevents egg development but does something completely different: prevents implantation of a zygote. The same hormones, the same schedule of ingestion but a different result? If you read your literature and study the endocrine system, you'll see that the pill still prevents development of the egg; it's just that they found that less estrogen and progesterone was needed to do that than originally thought. Sheez! B. Walsh
features@ihuxf.UUCP (M.A. Zeszutko) (04/26/84)
I'm still waiting for human rights to be accorded to adult women.
archiel@hercules.UUCP (Archie Lachner) (04/26/84)
What are the "worse alternatives" to abortion? Carrying the child to term,
giving birth, and giving it up for adoption is one alternative that comes
to mind. In case no one has heard, there is a shortage of babies for
adoption. Couples who for one reason or another (infertility is a major one)
want to adopt have to wait several years for the chance. Try telling one of
them that adoption is one of those "worse alternatives." I doubt they'd buy
it!
--
Archie Lachner
Logic Design Systems Division
Tektronix, Inc.
uucp: {ucbvax,decvax,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!tektronix!teklds!archiel
CSnet: archiel@tek
ARPAnet: archiel.tek@csnet-relaysdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (04/27/84)
Um, the mini-pill (no estrogen, small dose of progestin) does not prevent
ovulation, but rather is effective in preventing pregnancy through a
combination of changes in the cervical mucus which are less "hospitable"
to sperm and preventing implantation of the fertilized egg.
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA