Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: The Status of the Fetus and Its Rights
Message-ID: <1454@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 9-Aug-85 16:07:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1454
Posted: Fri Aug  9 16:07:26 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 15-Aug-85 21:35:57 EDT
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 204

The following is a response to all those, on both sides of the abortion
fence, who question my position on the status of the fetus as a living
autonomous being.  I have extracted statements from Brad Templeton,
Marie Desjardins Park, Jim Gordon Sr., and of course Thomas Newton.
I hope this clarifies the issues.

> I have never understood. Why all this bickering about whether a fetus is
> human or not?  Of course it is, but that's totally beside the point.
> Teenagers are human, but we won't let them vote, drink, disobey their parents
> or enter contracts.  People with total brain damage are members of our
> species, too, but the law says they are dead. [BRAD TEMPLETON]

But the anti-abortionists have a point in that if we claim the right of society
to restrict the "rights" (to point of termination) of a particular group
or *people* based on flimsy criteria like "less than X units of time 'old'",
what is to stop us from extending the size of a group by altering the value
of "X"?  Or adding other age ranges to the "acceptable" list?  This is a
legitimate concern.  My point is that in the case of abortion it is not a
related concern, precisely because the fetuses do not qualify as fullfledged
living human beings for a variety of reasons that will be discussed here.

I was asked in private mail correspondence [name withheld] "is it your
position that a fetus' humanity is dependent on the ability of medical
technology to keep it alive outside its mother's womb?  If not, what is your
position on this issue?"  Forsythe noted that Newton finds this fact of
life horrible, in a way:  the notion that "right to life" is dependent on
the ability of the organism to survive, and thus may be dependent on the
technology available to maintain the organism if it is not capable of
surviving autonomously.  But that is the real world.  There is no "right"
to life from some universal perspective.  As a society, we can agree not to
interfere in the rights of human beings.  But what constitutes a living
human being?  What does "alive" really mean?  Why should the definition be
extended to fetuses residing within a woman's body and drawing sustenance
from it.

> By the way, I think nearly every word you could possibly think of has
> ambiguous meanings. In the context of this debate many words (like
> "human" and "alive") are VERY ambiguous, mainly because you are using
> them in a different sense than I am.  You can't just say "there is
> only one definition of word X and it is the one that I am using" 
> unless everyone else agrees to it.   So why don't you let us know
> your definitions of "human" and "alive" and we'll tell you what
> we think.  [DESJARDINS]

> There seems to be a debate going on about the meaning of the word
> 'alive.'  Thomas Newton seems to think the term is well defined.
> Well, Thomas, is a cancer cell alive?  Is a kidney alive -- can I
> choose to transplant my kidney, or do I have to ask it's permission?
> Personally I think that a fetus qualifies as alive, as does a cancer
> cell, but I think that the carrier of either has the right to remove
> it.  The concept of 'alive' is not so well defined as some think! [GORDON]

Both these extracts can be contrasted to Newton's own views about the
nature of the word "alive":

> On the other hand, the function ALIVE(X) is fairly well-defined.  Rich's
> assertion that ALIVE(fetus) = FALSE was thus either a lie (intentional or
> not) or an attempt to introduce a second meaning for ALIVE.  If it was a
> lie, it was definitely counterproductive.  But even if it was an attempt
> to redefine ALIVE it was counterproductive -- do we really need the sort
> of confusion surrounding the word "alive" that we have surrounding the word
> "human"?  If every word used to communicate has extremely ambiguous meanings,
> we will all be the worse off for it. [NEWTON]

I have to agree that this is one reason why arguments of all sorts fall into
noise and disorder and nonsense:  there is no consensus as to what the terms
mean.  No, Mr. Newton, it was not a lie by any stretch of the imagination.
And no, it was not an attempt to redefine the word "alive".  It was an attempt
to use the term in the proper context.  To just redefine a term (like "human")
and say "this term no longer applies to you, thus..." is indeed a hideous
manipulative and baseless way of determining and restricting rights.  But
that's not what was done here in any way.

> Let's be blunt.  The claim that "the fetus is not alive" goes against
> everything that modern biology tells us.  If you expect any of us to
> believe that you are right and modern biology is wrong, you had better
> damn well give some reasons other than "I say it's so and if you don't
> agree then you have a closed mind".  [NEWTON]

On the contrary, when you are using the term "alive" to refer to a "living
autonomous being" rather than a virus or a bodily organ or collection of
similar cells within an organism, modern biology *is* in agreement with me.
(Actually it's the other way around.  It's not, as some would have you
believe, that I am making this up and scientists are convening to decide
whether or not to agree with me; it's more like I am in agreement with
modern biology.)  (As an aside, I like Newton's "Let's be blunt", as if
this was meant to be in contrast to "less blunt" things like wild accusations
and unsupported assertions he has made about me.  No matter.)

> The problem with the statement 'modern biology tells us that the fetus
> is not human' is that you are using your own definition of 'human'.  In
> the past, there have been proposals on this net that children up to the
> age of 12 are not 'human', and are thus fair game to be slaughtered!!!!
> And clearly if your definition of HUMAN is HUMAN(X) = HOMO_SAPIENS(X) &
> (TIME_SINCE_BIRTH(X) >= 13 years), logic will lead you to conclude that
> children up to the age of 12 are not 'human'.  [NEWTON]

Wait a minute.  A second ago you were saying that I was going *against*
modern biology, now you're saying that I'm just redefining human.  No,
Mr. Newton, I don't think so.  The fact that a person's age is determined
by his/her date of BIRTH, not the date of conception, the fact that the
person is only an autonomous living being once it is BORN, indicate to me
that the definition of "human" begins at birth, and it is YOU who is
desperately trying to redefine it for your ends.  By the way, who offered
these "proposals"?  As I mentioned before, it is a legitimate concern to
ask about arbitrary criteria like ">= x years old" for determining humanness.
It is not legitimate to try to stretch that concern to things for which the
definition does not apply.  It is up to those who would stretch the
definition to provide hard proof that it should be stretched, and to
precisely what point it should be stretched.

> The only 'support' you have given for your assertion so far is the claim
> that the fetus is a parasite.  If false, this claim has no bearing on the
> main assertion.  If true, it falsifies your main assertion -- a parasite
> is a LIVING organism.  Now you might be able to get a lively debate
> started on whether viruses are alive or not.  But I suspect that debate
> belongs in a different newsgroup. [NEWTON]

Only?  I hardly think so, though this is what you have persistently asserted.
Let's look at it a little more carefully than your cursory examination.  If
true, and it is a living parasitic organism, are you thus denying the right
of human beings to remove such parasitic organisms from their bodies on
these grounds?  

Let's look at ALL the factors leading to the conclusion that a woman has
the right to remove a fetus from her body.

1. her rights to her own body:  I think all except Mr. Rosenblatt, who
seems to think that rights stem from your ability to convince people that
you have them, would agree to a human being's rights to his/her body.
The question thus becomes "Are there factors that outweigh this?  Are there
other 'rights' that are being ignored?"

2. its parasitic nature:  already discussed.  No one is demanding that a
woman MUST remove the fetus, but given what it does to her body, surely
her wishes take precedence over anything usurping nourishment from her
and causing changes to her body against her will, if indeed the fetus can
be thought of as doing these things "wilfully".  If a woman has the
right to remove things from her body as a general case, what are the
grounds for granting an exception to a fetus?

3. inability to survive in the open world as an autonomous living being:
if a woman has the right to remove things from inside her body, and if we
cannot find a valid reason why fetuses should be an exception to this rule,
then clearly a woman should be able to do so.  The fact that fetuses so
removed cannot survive, and in fact, would undergo a pretty pathetic end to
their existence if just extracted and left on their own, indicates that the
humane thing to do is simply to terminate their existence prior to having
them endure a grueling and protracted end.  If they could, then perhaps they
"should".  But the fact that they can't tells me that they weren't fully alive
in the first place, that they required the environment of a LIVING HUMAN
BEING'S BODY for sustenance.  (This is very different from saying "well, WE
need air and food for sustenance".)  Given this, and given a person's rights
to their health and their bodies, I see no human rights being violated.

> Some seven month old fetuses can survive outside of their mother's bodies.
> Admittedly, they require incubators, but even normally born infants require
> a degree of care not necessary for older members of our species.  Are seven
> month fetuses human, then?  If not, why not? [private mail - name withheld]

Yes, there is surely a point at which a fetus is close enough to being a living
human being that it *could*, with medical assistance, be sustained through
the end of the fetal period to the point where it could be disconnected from
supporting equipment, and thus be a living human being.  (The nature of
distinguishing between different degrees of supporting equipment is important,
but not relevant, because we are talking about supporting equipment that
eventually is removed to allow an autonomous living person to continue [or
start] living.  Support by machines that perform all necessary life functions,
without which the person would cease to live, where there is no hope of
ever acheiving autonomy in life [again?], this is not life by any reasonable
definition.  To claim that it is would mean that an airconditioning system is
alive by this definition.)  Getting back to the point, such fetuses that
*could* survive, well, in many cases, they do.  And 99% of the time that has
nothing to do with abortion!  It has more to do with pregnant women in auto
accidents and other similar circumstances where the woman has been badly hurt
or even killed, where doctors attempt to sustain the fetus.  My question: what
does this have to do with a woman who WANTS to  remove the fetus from her
body, rather than a woman who doesn't?  The limits to abortion do not reach
into the time of pregnancy at which doctors have even attempted to save a
fetus from such a circumstance as I describe, certainly before the point at
which a fetus can be saved and expect to live a life as a human being.

In closing, I leave you with this little ditty of a parable, about the fetus
who wouldn't come out.

Its nine months were "up", but it just decided to just sit right where it
was and not come out.  Forceps and other more drastic measures proved futile,
as it barricaded itself in the womb and refused to budge.  The police came
with an eviction notice, ordering it to leave the premises of the woman's
body forthwith, immediately and right now, but he ignored it.  SWOT teams
were brought in (Special Women's Obstetric Taskforce), to no avail.  Where
do its "rights" to occupy this woman's body end?  More importantly, where
do they begin in the first place?  That is the question.  Are there
"rights" at all?  Or can it only expect to remain in there in the cases
where the woman decides to support and nourish and care for it with her body?

This article, of course, has effectively dismissed out of hand another
argument for abortion, along the lines of "you engaged in sex, and now
you're pregnant, and now you MUST endure the consequences of your naughty
action".  It has ignored this argument completely.

Rightfully so.
-- 
"Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?"    Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr