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