Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: The Embryo a Parasite? (metaphysical ?) Message-ID: <1936@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 7-Mar-84 13:55:39 EST Article-I.D.: cbscc.1936 Posted: Wed Mar 7 13:55:39 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 8-Mar-84 19:19:14 EST References: <7053@watmath.UUCP> <1354@druxv.UUCP>, <492@pyuxn.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Lines: 74 >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