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