pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (03/07/84)
>From Rich Rosen > If a fertilized egg or fetus or embryo (non-born potential human) can > live its own life without external support, it is thus a living thing, > and destroying it would be murder.... > I'm talking about real virtual womb type environments when I refer to > external support. If it is at a stage where it would fail this test, > it would be deemed a parasite in the woman's body, albeit one with the > potential of becoming human. Destroying it would thus not be murder, > unless you consider the killing of a tapeworm murder. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a parasite is a *foriegn* organism that lives inside it's host and is also harmful to the normal bodily functions. If a person is infected with a parasite, there would be something wrong with that person if, instead of wanting it removed, they loved it and nurtured it. Well, many women love those little embryos and go to great lengths not to hurt them, while others consider them a burden. So are we then to determine whether or not the embryo is a parasite subjectively, based on the woman's point of view? I think not. A parasite is a parasite. It is not one because some people view it as such. Also, I do not think you can compare pregnancy to a parasitic infection because it is not that. It is a normal biological function. The embryo is not foriegn matter. We can say that the tapeworm does not belong in our intestine. But we cannot say that the human embryo does not belong in its mother's womb. Again, you avoid the contention that the embryo is a human individual by saying that is has only the "potential" of becoming human. There is nothing that is added to the embryo (except food and oxygen -- don't we all need it?) to make it more human as time goes on. It just takes care of itself. A tapeworm will never be a human. > I guess the points are these: > If you believe that a person's body is his/her own, then the person should > have the right to remove unwanted objects from within it. If such an > object can be removed, and can still potentially grow to a point where it > is a living thing that can live on its own and not qualify as a parasite, an > effort can be made to do so, but the person from whom it was removed is not > necessarily obliged to assist in that effort. If it "dies" (i.e., fails > to continue growing to the point where it is a living thing), it was clearly > not a living thing, since it could not sustain its own life. If it lives, > so much the better, provided you are not "keeping alive" a deformed > organism who has not progressed beyond the status of a 5-month old embryo > who could never hope to survive in society. I would say that anyone has the right to remove anything they want from their body, but not when it results in the death of another human being. (Yes I will keep calling the fetus, zygote, embryo, whatever a human being until it is proved otherwise.) I'm not sure we can say that the embryo is just *part* of the woman's body. It is not, in the sense that her leg is part is part of her body. The embryo is a body in it's own right. Its genetic makup is different. Its circulatory and nervous systems are independent of the mother's. In the case of the normal fetus, it has two legs, two arms, one head, etc. If this fetus is also to be considered just part of the woman's body, then logically we should say that a pregnant woman really has four legs and arms, two heads, etc. If the fetus were a male this consideration could reveal a real logical absurdity :-). (Think about it. It might make sense.) I know that this is a thought excersise on your part. But you seem to be redefining human life in the abstract. It's as if you were saying that the biological method of reproduction should be different in order for its product to be considered "a living thing". Since its natural function will never meet your requirements, you have defined (natural) human reproduction out of existence. Let's deal with the way things really work. Paul Dubuc
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (03/08/84)
re: Paul Dubuc's article --- some points: > Also, I do not think you can compare pregnancy to a parasitic infection > because it is not that. It is a normal biological function. Define normal. Is a virus abnormal? What about cancer? What *objective* conclusion can you come to about what is *normal*? Even a tapeworm's life cycle is a normal biological function, no? > Again, you avoid the contention that the embryo is a human individual by > saying that is has only the "potential" of becoming human. There is nothing > that is added to the embryo (except food and oxygen -- don't we all need it?) > to make it more human as time goes on. It just takes care of itself. A > tapeworm will never be a human. It just takes care of itself? Fine. Then remove it from the person whose body it is occupying and let it "take care of itself". > I would say that anyone has the right to remove anything they want from > their body, but not when it results in the death of another human being. > (Yes I will keep calling the fetus, zygote, embryo, whatever a human > being until it is proved otherwise.) ---- > I know that this is a thought excersise on your part. But you seem > to be redefining human life in the abstract. I join these two comments together, though they were physically separated in the article, to make a point. What you call "defining life in the abstract" is an act performed every time you use the word life. There are common definitions of what is life (e.g., a virus doesn't qualify), but they are unclear enough that some bozo could make biting one's fingernails a capital crime. I'm not *redefining*, just trying in my own way to be objective. I think the burden of proof that a fetus *is* life rests with those who use that belief in their arguments. Burden of proof by assumption is not a valid argumentative technique unless you agree a priori that the assumption is axiomatic. Proof is not accomplished by simply adding "fetus" to the list of things that are considered living. Notions of life that are held in common (like physical autonomy) must be considered. > I'm not sure we can say that the > embryo is just *part* of the woman's body. It is not, in the sense that > her leg is part is part of her body. The embryo is a body in it's own > right. Its genetic makup is different. Its circulatory and nervous > systems are independent of the mother's. I'm not sure what the point is here. The same applies to a tapeworm. You make the point that some women cherish, nurture, and enjoy the entity growing inside them, but I am hard pressed to find a reason why ALL women *must* feel that way. I am, as I said, trying to take an objective stance (not to say I don't hold an opinion, just that I choose to look at it without preconceptions like "the fetus is obviously human", or "it is obviously right/wrong because..." type statements in general). If it could be proven that a fetus removed from a woman's womb could *live* (as in life) on its own as a physically autonomous being (Would it ever grow up to be truly human if it is removed at that early stage in any case?), that would certainly shed a new light on things. But if that is true, then why not do so? Why not remove a fetus from a woman who does not wish to have one in her womb and let it then live elsewhere (a surrogate mother's womb, ...). -- Pardon me for breathing, which I never do anyway oh, god, I'm so depressed... Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
ajs@hpfcla.UUCP (03/11/84)
>From cbscc!pmd: > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a parasite is a *foriegn* organism that > lives inside it's host and is also harmful to the normal bodily functions. An embryo or fetus is a foreign organism. Study your biology. Often it is harmful to the host's "normal bodily functions", especially if you consider their mental state and future life. > So are we then to determine whether or not the embryo is a parasite > subjectively, based on the woman's point of view? I think not. A parasite > is a parasite. An embryo is also a parasite in the literal sense, not a subjective one. Most of the time the host chooses to nurture it, for obvious reasons. > Also, I do not think you can compare pregnancy to a parasitic infection > because it is not that. It is a normal biological function. Parasites are a normal biological function. They are merely perceived as abnormal by their hosts (us). Your argument is weak at best. > We can say that the tapeworm does not belong in our intestine. But we > cannot say that the human embryo does not belong in its mother's womb. Both belong where they are, in the natural scheme of things. So what? > There is nothing that is added to the embryo... to make it more human as > time goes on... A tapeworm will never be a human. A sperm and egg will never be human unless united. An embryo will never be human unless carried to term. Again, so what? > I would say that anyone has the right to remove anything they want from > their body, but not when it results in the death of another human being. As usual, this otherwise-reasonable statement depends on a very weak assumption, that a fetus has the same status as a human being. My counter argument is that forcing women to carry unwanted fetuses would in effect give the fetus's rights priority over the women's. How ludicrous. > (Yes I will keep calling the fetus, zygote, embryo, whatever a human > being until it is proved otherwise.) What could possibly convince you? What exactly is a human being, then, if a human can also be a blob of protoplasm that looks more like a fetal pig, or dog, than a grown adult? Meanwhile, your presumptive, prejudicial use of the term merely undermines the rest of your argument. > You have defined (natural) human reproduction out of existence. Let's > deal with the way things really work. I heartily agree. That's why I argue in favor of the human right to abortion. As I've said before: Until society can provide either an infallible means of contraception, OR a way to remove, keep alive, and take responsibility for unwanted fetuses and the children that result, without infringing on the rights and freedoms of the pregnant women -- until that time, women MUST have the right to abortion. That is the essence of it. All moral arguments aside, the sheer weight of disagreement on this subject should lead anti-abortionists to some logical conclusions... That legislating against it would force their morals on many others, and that any such laws would be unenforceable. The "cure" would be worse than the "disease". Alan Silverstein
neal@denelcor.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer) (03/22/84)
************************************************************************** >Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a parasite is a *foriegn* organism that >lives inside it's host and is also harmful to the normal bodily functions. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines parasite as "...an organism living in or on another oraginism in parasitism..." No mention is made of "foreign" or "harmful". (The definition of parasitism includes the words "usu[ally] injures"--but it doesn't take much stretching to see that that applies to a fetus/embryo also.) >If a person is infected with a parasite, there would be something wrong >with that person if, instead of wanting it removed, they loved it and >nurtured it. Well, many women love those little embryos and go to great >lengths not to hurt them, while others consider them a burden. So are >we then to determine whether or not the embryo is a parasite subjectively, >based on the woman's point of view? I think not. A parasite is a parasite. >It is not one because some people view it as such. Au contraire, any reasonable definition of parasite is relative to the host. > We can say that the tapeworm does not belong in >our intestine. From the tapeworm's point of view, it certainly does. > But we cannot say that the human embryo does not belong >in its mother's womb. Those of us who believe in free choice would leave that decision to the mother. > There is nothing >that is added to the embryo (except food and oxygen -- don't we all need it?) >to make it more human as time goes on. If that were true, we could do away with this whole discussion by placing aborted fetuses in incubators and adopting them out. >I would say that anyone has the right to remove anything they want from >their body, but not when it results in the death of another human being. >(Yes I will keep calling the fetus, zygote, embryo, whatever a human >being until it is proved otherwise.) Please stop begging the question--proof has nothing to do with it until/unless we can come up with an accepatable definition of "human being". Incidentally, Webster's (op. cit.) doesn't come close to taking a position either way. Regards, Neal Weidenhofer Denelcor, Inc. <hao|csu-cs|brl-bmd>!denelcor!neal
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (03/23/84)
A response to Neal Weidenhofer's response to me: }>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a parasite is a *foriegn* organism that }>lives inside it's host and is also harmful to the normal bodily functions. } }Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines parasite as "...an organism }living in or on another oraginism in parasitism..." No mention is made }of "foreign" or "harmful". (The definition of parasitism includes the }words "usu[ally] injures"--but it doesn't take much stretching to see that }that applies to a fetus/embryo also.) I wouldn't give Webster's (any other English dictionary) credit for an exahustive *biological* definition of "parasitism". Look up the word in the Random House Unabridged dictionary and you won't find the word "usually". It is understood that any parasite is foreign. It is a different organism *in kind* than the host. It enters the host as an organism. It doesn't become one there. It is absurd to equate our method of reproduction with a parasitic infection. The embryo was formed with an egg produced by the mother. It is the same *in kind* as the mother. } }>If a person is infected with a parasite, there would be something wrong }>with that person if, instead of wanting it removed, they loved it and }>nurtured it. Well, many women love those little embryos and go to great }>lengths not to hurt them, while others consider them a burden. So are }>we then to determine whether or not the embryo is a parasite subjectively, }>based on the woman's point of view? I think not. A parasite is a parasite. }>It is not one because some people view it as such. } }Au contraire, any reasonable definition of parasite is relative to the }host. True, but you have to be consistent. If the embryo is a parasite in one woman it is a parasite in them all. Parasitism describes the way a parasite functions. The "function" of it does not change based on whether we think it does or not. The whole thrust behind defining the embryo as a parasite is to justify its removal as such, just as we would remove a tapeworm. If woman who wants to be pregnant are really loving a parasite, then they are pretty foolish, right? Let's all get rid of this infection called humanity and move on to extinction :-). } }> We can say that the tapeworm does not belong in }>our intestine. } }>From the tapeworm's point of view, it certainly does. } }> But we cannot say that the human embryo does not belong }>in its mother's womb. } }Those of us who believe in free choice would leave that decision to the }mother. } Why do you switch perspectives here. With the tapeworm, its point of view matters, but that of the fetus does not? Tell us Neil, what *is* the womb for, if not the fetus? "Free choice" is a broad term. No one in civilized society really has it. }> There is nothing }>that is added to the embryo (except food and oxygen -- don't we all need it?) }>to make it more human as time goes on. } }If that were true, we could do away with this whole discussion by placing }aborted fetuses in incubators and adopting them out. If they survive being cut to pieces or suctioned to shreds or poisoned with a saline solution. Right. } }>I would say that anyone has the right to remove anything they want from }>their body, but not when it results in the death of another human being. }>(Yes I will keep calling the fetus, zygote, embryo, whatever a human }>being until it is proved otherwise.) } }Please stop begging the question--proof has nothing to do with it }until/unless we can come up with an accepatable definition of "human }being". Incidentally, Webster's (op. cit.) doesn't come close to }taking a position either way. } Proof has everything to do with it. How do you prove that you are a human being? By your own definition, or by Webster's? What would you consider an "acceptable" definition? One which we could apply consistently. If you want to take the position that we don't know whether the fetus is human or not, you still can't justify killing it with ignorance. Better to give it the benefit of the doubt. When you're hunting game you don't just shoot at what might not be human. You make sure or don't shoot at all. Is there any in the pro-choice camp that are eager to come up with a good consistent definition of human life? I'd like to hear it. Can we suspend the death penalty for the human fetus until we find out what it is? Paul Dubuc
neal@denelcor.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer) (03/28/84)
************************************************************************** > It >is understood that any parasite is foreign. It is a different organism >*in kind* than the host. It enters the host as an organism. It doesn't >become one there. > >It is absurd to equate our method of reproduction with a parasitic >infection. The embryo was formed with an egg produced by the mother. >It is the same *in kind* as the mother. > > If the embryo is a parasite in one >woman it is a parasite in them all. Parasitism describes the way a parasite >functions. The "function" of it does not change based on whether we think >it does or not. I need to check further or the BIOLOGICAL definition of parasite. Meanwhile, in a less technical sense of the word (which I believe is more appropriate to the topic), parasites are as parasites do. If an organism exists in or on or otherwise at the expense of another organism "without making useful or adequate return" (Webster again), I believe that we are justified in referring to it (in everyday, non-technical speech) as a parasite. I further believe that "useful or adequate return" only makes sense when applied to individuals not to species. >} >}> We can say that the tapeworm does not belong in >}>our intestine. >} >}>From the tapeworm's point of view, it certainly does. >} >}> But we cannot say that the human embryo does not belong >}>in its mother's womb. >} >}Those of us who believe in free choice would leave that decision to the >}mother. >} > >Why do you switch perspectives here. With the tapeworm, its point of >view matters, but that of the fetus does not? For the same reason that you would say the opposite. Only the perspective has changed--not the point I am trying to make. > Tell us Neil, what *is* >the womb for, if not the fetus? The womb is for the fetus in women who choose to let the fetus stay there. The fact that houses are for living in doesn't mean that I have to let you live in my house against my will (even if it would otherwise be vacant). > "Free choice" is a broad term. No one >in civilized society really has it. More to the point, it is a relative term. No one has completely free choice in every aspect of life, granted. That's no excuse for taking away those free choices that we do have though. I would rather live in a society that allows as many free choices as possible. >}> There is nothing >}>that is added to the embryo (except food and oxygen -- don't we all need it?) >}>to make it more human as time goes on. >} >}If that were true, we could do away with this whole discussion by placing >}aborted fetuses in incubators and adopting them out. > >If they survive being cut to pieces or suctioned to shreds or poisoned >with a saline solution. Right. Ok, Ok, we would have to change the procedure for removing the fetus. The point is that we don't at this point have the capability to keep a fetus alive outside its mother's womb no matter how carefully we remove it. This strongly suggests, to me at least, that it needs more than food and oxygen--ask a pregnant woman (especially one that you have forced to stay that way against her will) if all she is giving the fetus is food and oxygen. Incidentally, I suspect that will be an option in the near future (so we better hurry up and settle this before it becomes moot :-) >Proof has everything to do with it. How do you prove that you >are a human being? By your own definition, or by Webster's? How do you prove anything without an agreed-upon definition? Please enlighten me. >What would you consider an "acceptable" definition? One which we >could apply consistently. See below. > If you want to take the position that we >don't know whether the fetus is human or not, you still can't justify >killing it with ignorance. Better to give it the benefit of the >doubt. When you're hunting game you don't just shoot at what might not >be human. You make sure or don't shoot at all. No, that is not the position at all. I AM SURE that the fetus is not a human being. >Is there any in the pro-choice camp that are eager to come up with >a good consistent definition of human life? I'd like to hear it. >Can we suspend the death penalty for the human fetus until we >find out what it is? Obviously, I am not going to try to give an EXHAUSTIVE definition of the term "human being". I am willing to suggest enough of a definition to distinguish between a "fetus" and a "human being" though. I propose that we use the old Roman Catholic concept of "quickening"--in more modern terms "viability". A "human being" can live outside of its mother's womb, a "fetus" (or "embryo" or "zygote") cannot. In cases of ANY DOUBT, I would even be willing to stipulate that if the mother wishes an abortion, the procedure would be done with the utmost care. If the organism removed really can survive with just food and oxygen as you pointed out that we all need, then it is a "human being" with all the rights that the rest of us have. Regards, Neal Weidenhofer Denelcor, Inc. <hao|csu-cs|brl-bmd>!denelcor!neal