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