wh@houxz.UUCP (W.HEINMILLER) (03/12/84)
[] Some of Paul Dubuc's comments point out the biggest issue of the abortion debate. It isn't simply the issue of when does a fetus become human, its the issue of what is "human" versus "not human". Not only is this a problem for the abortion debate, but euthanasia, whaling and several other current social debates. > 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. What is the definition of "human" such that we know a tapeworm can never achieve it? Is it physical configuration (head, arms, etc.)? Then what about birth defects or handicaps? Is it a mental capability? Then again what about brain damaged individuals, or monkeys and whales? And how do we know that a tapeworm might not turn into a human? While such a possibility is generally considered impossible in the scientific world, it could be considered possible if you reject basic science as some religious groups do. What then is "human", and what is the test that determines whether something is or is not "human"? > (Yes I will keep calling the fetus, zygote, embryo, whatever a human > being until it is proved otherwise.) How about calling a deer, whale, grass, cornstalk, etc. human beings until its proved otherwise? What is the test that determines "human"? "Is mowing your lawn murder?" Wayne Heinmiller Bell Communications Research houxz!wh Freehold, NJ
rcd@opus.UUCP (03/13/84)
<> > Some of Paul Dubuc's comments point out the biggest > issue of the abortion debate. It isn't simply the issue > of when does a fetus become human, its the issue of what is "human" > versus "not human". Not only is this a problem for the abortion > debate, but euthanasia, whaling and several other current social > debates. > > > 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. No, this won't get us anywhere...There are more possibilities than "human" and "not human". The universe just isn't that simple. If there were any possibility whatsoever for finding a single, unique distinction between "human" and "not human" that most people could agree upon, the whole issue would be moot. > > (Yes I will keep calling the fetus, zygote, embryo, whatever a human > > being until it is proved otherwise.) This is just plain stupid. The base of the discussion is a definition of "human". Definitions are not subject to proof, period. If you want to be stubborn about the human/nonhuman dichotomy, go ahead - but don't base your position on waiting for your opponents to prove a non-provable statement. -- {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd
decot@cwruecmp.UUCP (Dave Decot) (03/14/84)
I submit the following criteria for deciding whether or not an object is
human, assuming the term "conception" is generally agreed upon:
If the object originates from a conception between two gametes,
at least one of which is of \homo spaiens/, inside a woman or
otherwise, then while it has any capacity to observe its environment
and maintain recorded information internally, the object is human.
If the object loses permanently either of these capacities,
it is no longer human.
An object is not human until it acquires these capabilities.
This definition incorporates my view that human life is pointless if it
has no individual record of experience, and worth very much if it does.
Permanent cessation of electrical brain activity is the legal definition
of death, and is a reasonable one to apply to the question of when a human
being starts. There is no "being" if there is nobody to experience the
feeling of "being".
Dave Decot "Politicians are human, too."pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (03/18/84)
I would like to respond to Dave Decot's definition of a human being with regard to the abortion issue. > If the object originates from a conception between two gametes, > at least one of which is of \homo spaiens/, inside a woman or > otherwise, then while it has any capacity to observe its environment > and maintain recorded information internally, the object is human. > > If the object loses permanently either of these capacities, > it is no longer human. > > An object is not human until it acquires these capabilities. > > This definition incorporates my view that human life is pointless if it > has no individual record of experience, and worth very much if it does. First, assuming there are no problems with this definition, how do we apply it? It seems that such application must be made on a per individual basis (individual Zygote, that is). How do we measure consciousness in the individual? Especially the point at which it becomes conscious? I think that the line you are drawing here between human an non-yet-human is an invisible one. What observable qualities will the fetus exhibit once it crosses the line into consciousness? In some cases humans do not exhibit behaviour that would convince us that they were human, according to your criteria. Is a sleeping person conscious? We could say that while a person is sleeping he is not capable of observing his envionment or maintaining recorded information about it. He will have that capability at some future point in time, but then so will the fetus. But that is getting into the problems with your definition. More on that later. Even if the point at which the fetus becomes conscious could be accurately determined we would have to require abortion clinics to make this measurement for each individual fetus before aborting it. We cannot make a general rule that all fetuses become consious at, say, seven weeks gestation because there is a lot of error involved in determining the age of the fetus before aborting it. Also some individuals may cross the threshold sooner than others. If that happens we might find ourselves killing human beings that fit your definition. The heart of the fetus begins beating at five to six weeks--before many women are even sure they are pregnant. Brain activity has been measured as early as eight weeks. How many abortions do you think are done before eight weeks? A woman can legally get an abortion any time before birth. If we are going to accept Dave's definition, what are we then going to do about the slaughter. (Yes, I think I must use that word here.) > > Permanent cessation of electrical brain activity is the legal definition > of death, and is a reasonable one to apply to the question of when a human > being starts. There is no "being" if there is nobody to experience the > feeling of "being". I do not think the definition of life that is applied to its cessation can be applied to its begining. We can apply the criteria to a fully grown human body because it has the organs that perform the functions on which the criteria are based. It has a heart, a brain and respiratory system so we would expect them to be performing their functions. If they don't we pronounce the human "dead". That pronouncement is confirmed by the body's rapid decay afterword. A human zygote has none of the above organs (yet) but it is still alive. It does not decay. And we have yet to explain how those cells divide and become diversified--some becoming skin, others bone, blood, the different organs, etc.--when each cell has identical genetic material. Something is going on there. Somehow it "knows" what physical (at least) form it's going to take and how to get there. It's quite different from our dead bodies. The zygote cannot be "blamed" for not having brain function when it does not yet have a brain. The very fact that you have to use the word "permanent" above disqualifies use of that criteria on the fetus. Now I'm getting into the problems I have with the definition itself. I think that it confuses the condition of being a human with the stage of developement of that human. I disagree with Dave's assertion that "there is no 'being' if there is nobody to experience the feeling of 'being'". There is definitely a "being" there from the moment of conception. Whether or not if feels its "being" in the same way we do, or even "feels" it at all is irrelevant to what it *is*. It is definitely a being and it is alive and human. It is not an adult human being, but still a human being. If not human, what then? Conception, by its very defintion, is the point at which something new comes into existence. Something which has not existed previously. That is when the life of a unique individual human being begins. Paul Dubuc
liz@umcp-cs.UUCP (03/19/84)
Your definition would essentially make abortion illegal. Brain waves have been measured in the fetus as early as 8 weeks. That probably means that there have been brain waves present already -- maybe even as long as two weeks earlier. Seeing as that's about the earliest a woman finds out that she's pregnant... At the Pregnancy Aid Center, we have the Time-Life pictures of the developing unborn (*no* abortion pictures!). They quite neatly do away with any of the "glob" and "fetal" tissue arguments. -Liz -- Univ of Maryland, College Park MD Usenet: ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz Arpanet: liz%umcp-cs@CSNet-Relay