Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site spp1.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwspp!spp2!spp1!johnston From: johnston@spp1.UUCP Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: Re: Perhaps my question isn't so simple Message-ID: <144@spp1.UUCP> Date: Wed, 16-Jan-85 19:39:44 EST Article-I.D.: spp1.144 Posted: Wed Jan 16 19:39:44 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 21-Jan-85 02:13:16 EST References: <3264@alice.UUCP> <662@bunker.UUCP> <235@psivax.UUCP> Organization: TRW, Redondo Beach CA Lines: 61 > What this comes down to is what is meant by "human-being". > You believe that humanity is acquired at the moment of conception. > I believe that there is a gradual, step-by-step developement from > an unfertilized ovum to an adult human being, at about 18 yrs > past birth, and that there are no transitions that are sufficiently > more significant than others to *require* a recognition of a > change of status. Thus *any* splitting points must be *arbitrary*. > Thus we are back to the original question, why should *your* > dividing line be prefered to anyone elses. After all almost any > argument which can be advanced for the "humanity" of a fertilized > embryo can be applied equally well to an unfertilized ovum, > which would make failure to become pregnant equivalent to murder! > -- > > Sarima (Stanley Friesen) > > {trwrb|allegra|burdvax|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen A "human-being", according to one definition, is a member of the species, homo sapiens, identified by a unique number of chromosomal pairs in its genetic makeup. I would say that an organism acquires humanity when it possesses this genetic makeup. An unfertilized ovum, as well as a sperm cell, is a zygote possessing only half of each pair and, if left to itself, will transition nowhere. Once fertilization takes place, no genetic material is added or removed. Since you don't see a tranition at this point and if you believe that any of us are humans, then I must assume that you consider the germ cell itself to be human. If this is true then fertilization must be a very interesting occurrence where two humans join together to form one. But then why attribute the bestowal of humanity to the production of the ovum or sperm. This involves a lessening of genetic material where a human cell possessing a set of chromosomal pairs splits each pair to form the zygote. Surely the original human cell must be a human. But every human cell derives itself from cell division tracing back to the original fertilized ovum which, by your logic, is not enough to bestow humanity, and so forth ans so on. So when did each member of our species start? Actually, I agree that attempts to establish an arbitrary transition point makes no sense and when one's humanity is involved is kind of scary. I believe the transition point should be established as early as possible to cover times when there is any question. I'd definitely feel this way if the criteria was being applied to me. Now if you want to place that point before conception then, for one thing, abortion would be destroying humanity, but the pragmatics of attempting to prohibit nocturnal emmissions and the menstrual flow would be astounding. Conception provides a much more manageable point to attempt to protect what would be humanity since it is after the transition point. For any transition point after that, if humanity is to be protected, definite proof needs to be stated showing why humanity wasn't and now it is. The real arbitrary dividing lines are ones that show no addition of anything needed to define a human being genetically. Mike Johnston