bstempleton@watmath.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (03/01/84)
Note how I flagged this article as talking about the moral issue, namely, is abortion right or wrong? Many people like to debate when a fetus becomes a human being. The two camps pick upong conception and birth. anti-abortionists claim (fairly correctly) that the birth distinction is arbitrary. I would like to suggest the the conception distinction is just as arbitrary. Yes a fetus is human, as is an adult person, as is a zygote, AND as is a sperm-egg pair (unfertilized) as is a skin cell. They all have all the genetic material, and with the exception of the skin cell (for now, until we can clone a human, which is possible in theory) they all can be made into a thinking human being (What I'll call a "person") if we want to. Barring the injection of a soul by god, what is the difference in potential between an egg and a zygote? A modern biochemist can take an egg and fertilize it in vitro with a high success rate. So the two potentials are within an order of magnitude. Only a chemical reaction which we understand part of remains in the way. And it's a chemical reaction that likes to happen, and which we can make happen fairly reliably. How can it not be murder to destroy an egg which has a sperm on the way in and yet be murder to destroy the finished product ten seconds later? How can there be any line based on the chemical reactions of DNA? If we are to draw a line, we must use another critera. If you look around, I think you'll see it is the developed mind that makes the human unique. When the brain is dead, the law says the person is dead. In is the mind that distinguishes us from the animals and makes us special. So here is my proposed definition: Human cells are not a person unless there is (or has been, with the possible chance of remission) a developed human mind of capability beyond that of the animals we kill for sport, food or experimentation. To be conservative, we should say the capability should be way below that of those above animals. For example, it is estimated dolphins and some simians are beyond infants, but the question is too hard to decide easily in this case. -- Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ont. (519) 886-7304
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (03/02/84)
From Brad Templeton: > Many people like to debate when a fetus becomes a human being. The > two camps pick upong conception and birth. anti-abortionists claim > (fairly correctly) that the birth distinction is arbitrary. I would > like to suggest the the conception distinction is just as arbitrary. My position is that conception is the least arbitrary place to draw the line. > Yes a fetus is human, as is an adult person, as is a zygote, AND > as is a sperm-egg pair (unfertilized) as is a skin cell. They all > have all the genetic material, and with the exception of the skin > cell (for now, until we can clone a human, which is possible in theory) > they all can be made into a thinking human being (What I'll call a "person") > if we want to. First, the issue is not whether or not something "is human" but whether it is *a* human. Your word "AND" above separates these two categories (the latter from the former). My position is that the former group are unique individual human beings, the latter are not. (e.g. my foot is human--whether or not it is attached to my body--but it is not a human.) > Barring the injection of a soul by god, what is the difference in potential > between an egg and a zygote? A modern biochemist can take an egg and > fertilize it in vitro with a high success rate. So the two potentials > are within an order of magnitude. Only a chemical reaction which we > understand part of remains in the way. And it's a chemical reaction that > likes to happen, and which we can make happen fairly reliably. How can > it not be murder to destroy an egg which has a sperm on the way in and > yet be murder to destroy the finished product ten seconds later? > How can there be any line based on the chemical reactions of DNA? It seems to me that you are trying to play a semantic game by saying that conception is "only a chemical reaction". As if it were on the same level with the human digestive process or the reaction of sodium and water. The fact is that fertilization is a lot more than a chemical reaction. It is a biological event. Without the occurrence of this event the egg will never be anything but an egg. Before you reduce conception to being only a chemical reaction, I suggest that you justify this reduction by also explaining how the zygote becomes a human (if you insist on being mechanistic). How do the dividing cells cooperate--some becomming bones, others muscles, skin, etc.--when each cell has identical genetic material. If you can explain how such "intercellular communication" works, I'm sure that there are thousands of biologists who would like to hear from you. > If we are to draw a line, we must use another critera. If you look around, > I think you'll see it is the developed mind that makes the human unique. You better talk to some AI folks about that. For myself, I'm inclined to agree, but I think the mind is only one of the things that contributes to our uniqueness. For example, you pass off the existence of soul too easily, as if it were irrelevant. The word "developed" is too vague for use in drawing a line between life and death. > When the brain is dead, the law says the person is dead. In is the mind > that distinguishes us from the animals and makes us special. So here is > my proposed definition: > Human cells are not a person unless there is (or has been, with the > possible chance of remission) a developed human mind of capability beyond > that of the animals we kill for sport, food or experimentation. > To be conservative, we should say the capability should be way below > that of those above animals. For example, it is estimated dolphins and > some simians are beyond infants, but the question is too hard to decide > easily in this case. It's a very fuzzy line you are drawing here. I think there are a lot of problems with it. First of all the "Harvard Criteria" (which, I think, is the basis for the law you speak of) is more than just brain death. Also, this criteria is used to determine life at the other end of the spectrum (i.e. deceased) not whether it has begun. How do you measure the brain activity of a fetus consistently? Note that you would have to do this for each individual fetus, since determining the acutal date of conception contains an element of guesswork and doctors have often been wrong in their estimates. Even if it could be precisely determined, some individuals may cross the threshold before others. So what if the local abortion clinic does not have the technology to make this measurement? Also there are regular times during our lives when we have no measurable brain activity (i.e. "dreamless sleep"). According to your criteria I might be justified in killing someone during this time. Especially since (as you seem to imply in the case of the fetus) it makes no difference that brain activity will occur in that individual's future. By your criteria would we be justified in killing the severely retarded? Your comparison with anamals is interesting. We have laws to protect animals. I can get into a lot of trouble for shooting deer out of season, or even killing a stray dog. If you say that a fetus (up to a certain point) is on the level with animals, why don't they get as much protection? I'm glad this discussion has started on the right issue. That is whether or not the fetus is a human being. It's a shame that we are only facing up to it after abortion has been legalized. From my observations, it seems that the "pro-choice" camp has never really cared about facing this issue--only avoiding it. Why have we taken the path that says "let's legalize abortion now (because we feel it's a woman's right) and figure out later whether or not the fetus is a human with rights of it's own"? If we ever determine that it is, is there any easy way back? Or will we keep trying to find more justification for our decision to avoid the realization that we have been wrong in our estimation of such an important matter has human life. Paul Dubuc
mlf@druxv.UUCP (Fontenot) (03/02/84)
At the instant of conception, there is a new and unique human being that never existed before. Killing that unique human being is no different than killing a newly born human. If you can justify killing a human immediately after it comes into existance, you should equally well be able to justify killing a newborn, or a human at any other stage of its life. The argument about brain developement is groundless...what if you were, for some reason, rendered comatose for a week, but capable of complete recovery after that week. Is it OK for someone to kill you because your mind isn't currently functioning? Someday we will find all of the present-day pro-abortion rationalizations as hard to believe as the Hitler death camps...he had his rationalizations too, you know.
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (03/03/84)
-- >>> The argument about brain developement is groundless...what if you were, >>> for some reason, rendered comatose for a week, but capable of complete >>> recovery after that week. Is it OK for someone to kill you because >>> your mind isn't currently functioning? >>> Someday we will find all of the present-day pro-abortion rationalizations >>> as hard to believe as the Hitler death camps...he had his rationalizations >>> too, you know. Wrong-o. The fetus has never before had a mind; my hypothetically comatose self has, although the more I get swept up in this debate the more I begin to doubt it. As for the off-hand equating of pro-choice advocates with Hitler, well, such trivializing of the Holocaust is prima facie evidence of the submitter's own brain death. No wonder he's worried. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 02 Mar 84 [12 Ventose An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (03/03/84)
>From Brad Templeton: > When the brain is dead, the law says the person is dead. In is the mind > that distinguishes us from the animals and makes us special. So here is > my proposed definition: > Human cells are not a person unless there is (or has been, with the > possible chance of remission) a developed human mind of capability beyond > that of the animals we kill for sport, food or experimentation. > Paul Dubuc: > Also there are regular times during our lives when we have no measurable > brain activity (i.e. "dreamless sleep"). According to your criteria I might > be justified in killing someone during this time. Especially since (as you > seem to imply in the case of the fetus) it makes no difference that brain > activity will occur in that individual's future. I suggest Paul, that you read Brad's definition more carefully before you start drawing sensationalist conclusions that are not there. Any pro-choice argument can be turned and pushed to apply to living people: "so, if we allow the killing of fetuses for such and such reasons, then why can't we kill people for the same reason?". This seems to imply that killing people is worse than killing fetuses; well, if it is, we can simply not allow it. We have the power to make up our own laws. > Your comparison with anamals is interesting. We have laws to protect animals. > I can get into a lot of trouble for shooting deer out of season, or even killing > a stray dog. If you say that a fetus (up to a certain point) is on the > level with animals, why don't they get as much protection? Many of these laws protecting animals such as the hunting season laws are there for other purposes than stopping the animals from getting killed. They are there to save the animals from being extinct, to make sure that they have a time when they can reproduce, so that there will be more animals to kill in the next humting season. The laws to stop the killing of stray dogs are there to protect the dog's owner's right to have his/her dog alive, and also to make sure that people don't start shooting in public places and to avoid cruelty to animals. The only rights so far that animals have is the right to not be subjected to cruelty, and the right to life if they happen to be an endangered species, and only the last one is enforced. All other laws protecting animals are there to benefit people. I do not think you can draw an analogy with fetuses here. > I'm glad this discussion has started on the right issue. That is whether or > not the fetus is a human being. It's a shame that we are only facing up > to it after abortion has been legalized. From my observations, it seems that > the "pro-choice" camp has never really cared about facing this issue--only > avoiding it. Why have we taken the path that says "let's legalize abortion > now (because we feel it's a woman's right) and figure out later whether or > not the fetus is a human with rights of it's own"? If we ever determine that > it is, is there any easy way back? Or will we keep trying to find more > justification for our decision to avoid the realization that we have been > wrong in our estimation of such an important matter has human life. No, there is not A RIGHT issue. The abortion problem is more complicated than deciding whether a fetus is a person or not; like it or not, the fetus lives in the mother, and the fact that a woman is pregnant does not make her less of a person than the fetus. Even if the fetus was a person, it would still not be obvious that the mother has no say as to what lives in her body. The question "in which circumstances can killing be allowed?" would still remain. There are many more factors involved in this debate, such as quality of life, the right of people to control their bodies and their health and social repercussions of allowing or not allowing abortion. The question of whether a fetus is a human being is very important in this debate, but it is only PART of the debate, it is not THE debate. Simplifying the question will not work. I think YOU are the one who is refusing to accept that it is a more complicated question than you would like it to be. Sophie Quigley ...!{decvax,allegra}!watmath!saquigley
decot@cwruecmp.UUCP (Dave Decot) (03/03/84)
M. L. Fontenot writes (all indented text):
At the instant of conception, there is a new and unique human
being that never existed before. Killing that unique human being
is no different than killing a newly born human. If you can
justify killing a human immediately after it comes into
existance, you should equally well be able to justify killing
a newborn, or a human at any other stage of its life.
A difference is that before the brain begins to function there is no history
of experience, which makes up who a person is. This individuality of
recorded experience is the biggest difference between beings and non-beings,
and is primarily why I value human life. I have other reasons, too.
Four or eight cells, albethey "human," have no ability to record experience,
and thus are as killable as cancer, since they may be recreated at any time.
There is no "being", because nobody is experiencing it.
The argument about brain developement is groundless...what if you were,
for some reason, rendered comatose for a week, but capable of complete
recovery after that week. Is it OK for someone to kill you because
your mind isn't currently functioning?
No, it isn't OK to kill me because my brain has momentarily ceased,
and I don't care if I don't make a complete recovery, as long as I retain
some record of my life and a way to express it. If not, I don't care if
I live or die, because I am nobody. Kill me (painlessly, please), unless
somebody wants a new "baby."
Someday we will find all of the present-day pro-abortion rationalizations
as hard to believe as the Hitler death camps...he had his rationalizations
too, you know.
Those killings were bad because those people had lives and experiences,
which were valuable to them and to others.
Dave Decot "A zygote isn't people, yet."
decvax!cwruecmp!decot (Decot.Case@rand-relay)peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (03/04/84)
The either/or nature of "Is a fetus a human life?" leaves me rather cold. Society balances off opposing forces all the time, particularly in civil lawsuits. It is instructive to take an opposing-forces view of abortion. I think the staunchest pro-choice advocate will admit that there is the possibility that a fetus will, given good pre-natal care and supportive, loving parents, possibly contribute a great deal to society at some time. You don't want to prevent the birth of another Einstein, do you? On the other hand, I think the staunchest pro-life advocate will admit there is the possibility that a fetus will grow up into a common criminal, a Hitler, or worse. You don't want to bring someone into the world who will rob your parents and kill your sister, do you? For any given fetus, we just don't know how matters will turn out; we have to use our best judgement, and create a legal and social situation such that making the "right" decision is facilitated. Is abortion EVER the right decision? I suggest that if we know the fetus is to grow up into a mass murderer, who will kill a dozen people, then, all other things being equal, an abortion is the right decision, even if only from the child's view (I don't think there are many happy criminals). Growing up as a wanted child and living next door to a child who was almost completely unwanted, I think the degree to which a child is wanted is a good predictor of how pro- or anti-social the child will become (though I know of no references to this-- it is purely anecdotal). Abortion on demand would, I think, lower the number of unwanted children born. One would think this would be a positive development; I do. Positive enough to warrant public funding, with the hope that it would, in the long term, result in less money having to be spent on pursuing and punishing criminals. "Every child a wanted child" is a slogan I sympathize with. There are many other considerations, however. The personal autonomy of the pregnant woman is very important. The possibility that a fetus may grow up into a happy adult, even if raised as an unwanted child, must be considered. The possibility that a child unwanted by his/her mother might be very dearly wanted by a couple not able to have children is very very important. More considerations than I want to go into. But I believe the argument presented here, though it does not reflect my complete opinion on the matter, does add to the debate and possibly awaken some to the dangers of letting a pregnancy go to term if the child so born is to be raised unwanted. p. rowley, U. Toronto
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (03/06/84)
I have yet to hear this point of view or this proposal, so hear goes: 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 not talking about respirators, 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. Now, I'm not sure if such a distinction can be clearly made pointing to a precise point in the pregnancy timeline, but remember this is a thought experiment. If a fetus is removed from a woman's body such that it is no longer living off of the woman in what some would call a parisitic fashion, if it dies, it dies. It wouldn't have lived on its own anyway. It needed the resources of the woman's body to survive. Now look up the definition of the word 'parasite', and if you're so inclined, try to describe what benefits it would provide to the "host" to exempt it from that definition. On the other hand, if it lives, it lives. Now, I'm not sure what sort of "living" that would be for an only partially evolved and developed human. Another possibility would be that if such a fetus/embryo is removed from a woman's body, it would not HAVE to be left to die. Artificial womb environments, or perhaps even surrogate mothers (if biotechnology gets us to that point) could offer their wombs for the duration of the fetus' development. 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. -- Pardon me for breathing, which I never do anyway oh, god, I'm so depressed... Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/06/84)
Personally, I advocate serious research into the reversal of sterilisation. And "test-tube" babies. Then sterilise *everybody*. If you want to have children, you can get the process undone. There is a loop-hole for women who get raped while they are trying to have a child by another man, but that is rather small compared to what we have today. And we won't have to worry about killing *anything*. -- Laura Creighton (NOTE NEW ADDRESS) utzoo!laura