Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihlpg.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
From: tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Some Doctors agree with Arndt, . . . Gosh!
Message-ID: <1097@ihlpg.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 16-Aug-85 19:14:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihlpg.1097
Posted: Fri Aug 16 19:14:53 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Aug-85 21:57:15 EDT
References: <3658@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 38

> [Ken Arndt]
> From a recent Church newspaper:
> "Sixty prominent physicians have recently declared that the 'biological
> facts' show that the unborn are living human beings.  The doctors, including
> two past presidents of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology,
> signed a statement aimed at SHIFTING THE FOCUS OF THE DEBATE AWAY FROM RELIGION
> AND MAKING IT A BIOLOGICAL FACT. (italics mine)  The statement says in part
> that 'a human ovum fertilized by a human sperm produces a BIOLOGICALLY
> IDENTIFIABLE (italics mine again,- Tanenbaum, et al take note!) human embryo.
> That embryo contains all the essential biological material and genitic
> information required for complete celular maturation, human tissue and organ
> development."
----------------------------------
OK, I took note.  Let's repeat the statement.
"A human ovum fertilized by a human sperm produces a biologically identifiable
human embryo. That embryo contains all the essential biological material and
genetic information required for complete cellular maturation, human tissue
and organ development."
I agree! (Surprise!) However, it is still a matter of definition whether
the embryo is a human being or merely a potential human being.  It is also
a matter of definition if the embryo is alive or not.  Ken Arndt et. al. claim
that the embryo is alive and is a human being.  Rich Rosen et. al. claim the
reverse.  Both Arndt and Rosen claim that this justifies their positions
on abortion.  I think both are wrong.  I think the definitions are irrelevant.
In my opinion, we have a classic case of a choice of the lesser of two evils:
1)the destruction of an embryo
2)an unwanted pregnancy
I personally fell, unlike some "pro-choicers", that the embryo does have
an intrinsic value.  However, to give it FULL human rights, as most
"pro-lifers" desire, would make users of the IUD and other similar
contraceptives premeditated murderers, subject to the death penalty
in those jurisdictions that have one.  I hope that Ken Arndt does not
favor this.  I think, however, that it does logically follow from giving
full human rights to fetuses.  Exactly what rights a fetus should have
at what stage of development is one of those difficult issues that
reasonable people can disagree on.  I'll leave that one alone for now.
-- 
Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL  ihnp4!ihlpg!tan