XVDHMAK@VCUVM1 (Michael Kline) (02/13/90)
2nd in series from John Ankerburg 02/12/90 21:45
While there's not much here, I found a few quotations that may provide
for some interesting discussion. I prefixed any of my personal comments
with "MAKS>".
This quote was from John W. Montgomery, Attorney/Trial Lawyer in USA
and England: "You know if you don't define the beginning of human life from
the moment of conception, you will necessarily define it functionally at
some other junction. It will be defined in terms of what the kid or the
adult is able to do. It won't be in terms of what the person is, but what
the person's able to produce. For example, once his brainwaves start
operating then he's a person, once his heart beats he's a person, once he
can accomplish this, that, or the other thing, he is a valuable member of
society. The necessary consequence is that the minute that the society no
longer values what you do, or I do, then that same society may want to get
rid of us."
One of the problems with definition by function is that during a
accident or a stroke, you may not exhibit any of these characteristics.
What about the comatose, severe stroke victims, illiterate, and downs
children? What ever the qualifications, there is a chance that sometime
during our life we might not measure up. What then?
Roe vs. Wade stated that a human being is "... a compelling interest to
the state" only when it has the capability of "meaningful life." We know
how far this goes now, but it could easily be applied to the cases above.
Personhood has been defined by what it does, and not what it is.
This has caused all sorts of problems. Viability was 28 to 24 weeks in
1973, now it is 19 to 20 weeks. Because the definition is on function, new
technology changes this. Some believe this will be pushed back to 12 weeks.
And when available, artificial wombs will make viability right up to
conception. Then what do we use for a gauge? If artificial wombs become
available(they are calling for 3-5 years), do we then say the woman has the
right to terminate the "incubation"? If so, then what does the reason
become? If the government pays for this incubation, or if "funding" is
taken away, what will the reason be?
The point was brought up that the fetus is not viable, but if left in
its "natural" environment, it will live right up to term. If you were taken
and placed under water, out of your natural environment, what would be your
chances? If the same test, that being that of taking you out of your
natural environment, are you viable?
Dr. John Willke MD, Pres. National Right to Life - "Is this being
human? Yes, from the single cell stage. How do we know? You get a
microscope. 46 human chromosomes. This is not a carrot, this is not a
rabbit, and this is a living human member of homo sapiens. This being is
human. Is this being sexed? Yes, boy or girl from the single cell state. Is
this being alive? Well of course it's alive, and growing. Is this being
unique? Yes, never before in the history of the world, and never again in
the history of the world will an individual be created who is exactly like
this tiny male or female human."
C. Everett Koop, MD, Former Surgeon General - "... Anyone who knows the
birth of the first one, Louise Brown, has to recognize that life begins at
conception. You can put a sperm and an egg in a petrie dish, and get a
human being nine months later, with nothing being added to it, except to
put that fertilized egg back into its mother's uterus you know that life
begins at conception."
And again, Mr. Koop - "I think the world has known, its biologists
anyway, that life begins at conception if you're a baboon, or a dove, or a
fox. It's only when you talk about the most complicated of animals, the
human being, that people get into this controversy about when life begins.
Life begins to biologists at conception."
Dr. John C. Willke - "Yes this tiny being is alive and growing. What is
the opposite of alive? Dead! What does abortion do? Kill! This is human,
alive, complete, and growing. You did not come from a single fertilized
ovum. You once WERE a single fertilized ovum. All you've done is grow up."
Bernard Nathanson, MD, Obstetrician, NY - Asked "At what point do you
feel the fetus should be considered a human being?" Bernard: "Well, we
can't have points you see. We've discovered that with the use of real time
ultrasound we've been able to see the infant breathing in the uterus, it's
heart beating, it's thumb going into it's mouth, and as I say participating
in all the activities of which we commonly associate with the human
infant."
Again, "There is no bar-mitzvah in the uterus, it is merely life
beginning when it really begins. Now we've created it in the test tube.
We've watched it start. We have seen the spark struck in in-vitro
fertilization, when the sperm meets the egg. So the question of when life
begins is not longer meta-physical, theological, legal, moral, religious,
it is absolutely scientific now and established to begin at conception.
Next week they are going to address the question about if a woman has
the right to control her own body.
A woman, name not given (probably to make you tune in next week) - "I
think every woman does have the right to control her own body. The question
is, does she have the right to control someone else's body? What we say in
this country, in a democratic society, is that we as individuals can't
attack, much less take the life of another innocent human being. And that's
really the issue at stake in this whole issue of abortion. Science
demonstrates, and every woman who's pregnant and comes home from the doctor
will tell you, that there's another unique human being, living and
developing, growing in the mother's womb. So yes, women have the right to
control their own body, but they shouldn't have the right to determine the
fate of another human being, especially an innocent baby.
In His Love,
Michael A. Kline, Sr. SSE
VDH, Technical Support
(804)786-1559
XVDHMAK at VCUVM1
Richmond, Virginia