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!cbosgd!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: The myth of humanity (moral article)
Message-ID: <1895@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 2-Mar-84 12:01:05 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.1895
Posted: Fri Mar  2 12:01:05 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 4-Mar-84 00:29:09 EST
References: <7053@watmath.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus
Lines: 110


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