Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site oliven.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!oliveb!oliven!barb From: barb@oliven.UUCP (Barbara Jernigan) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: The Status of the Fetus and Its Rights (Humanity Defined) Message-ID: <426@oliven.UUCP> Date: Tue, 1-Oct-85 12:10:34 EDT Article-I.D.: oliven.426 Posted: Tue Oct 1 12:10:34 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 3-Oct-85 06:24:43 EDT References: <429@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <1546@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca Lines: 117 Reading Michael McNeil's 'latest' article has jogged a quick by-thought. I *THINK* (and you'll correct me if I'm wrong) I've suddenly realized what many "pro-lifers" seem reluctant to admit is a central pillar of the "humanity" argument. PREMISE: It seems to me that most of the pro-lifers are arguing from a moral standpoint steeped in their religion, generally Christian. However, before people start flaming, note the following from the keyboard of Poul Anderson (*The Queen of Air and Darkness*): "...oh, I suppose," [Barbro said,] "it's just something left over from my outway childhood, but do you know, when I'm under them I can't think of stars as balls of gas, whose energies have been measured, whose planets have been walked by prosaic feet. No, they're small and cold and magical; our lives are bound to them; after we die, they whisper to us in our graves." "Emotionally, physics may be a worse nonsense," [Sherrinford responded.] "And in the end, you know, after a sufficient number of generations, thought follows feeling. Man is not at heart rational. He could stop believing the stories of science if those no longer felt right." MAN IS NOT AT HEART RATIONAL. Although many of us would stringently deny it, our decisions are as often (or more) based on emotional/subconscious/ *superstitious* reactions rather than 'logical scientific enquiry.' (And even the latter oft' stems from an EMOTIONAL need to place order -- yea, even Law -- in the Universe.) The abortion argument fights greatly in the emotions. We may quote science, but the decision (pro- or against abortion) is not born of science but of values -- which are born of deep seated emotion. Now, I don't want to get into a philosophical/psychological argument here (besides, this discourse is based on *my* world view; I freely admit I might be *wrong*) (there's a lot of years of trying to make sense of the world behind this -- more detailed explanations can be made available upon mail-request (though I don't expect any)). I digress, excuse me. Now, a lot of the abortion argument pivots around the "humanity of the fetus" (justly, I might add). I agree with Michael McNeil, the demarcation of "Human" is a seemingly arbitrary one -- although we would all deny it. We want life to be clearer cut than that (and to some it is, apparently). But even an arbitrary demarcation has guidelines, and I have heard three major ones used in the past discussions: 1. Potential -- the fetus, left to its own devices and barring unforeseen complications, will become a human being and nothing else. 2. Autonomy -- the fetus cannot survive outside the mother's womb, ergo is not alive -- more to the point, is not *human* alive. 3. Sentience/Self-Awareness -- when does it begin? In our secular society, it is the brain which is observed to make us fully human. Our degree of Sentience sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom even more so -- within our emotional criterions, admitted or not -- than the sheer physical similarities of *Homo sapiens*. Of course, it doesn't stop here, but here I will pause. As I said, it is our secular society which chooses Sentience as a criterion. Before we were so secular, there was another criterion (which, I believe is related). Thank you, Michael, for the quote to illustrate my point. ... Were we to meet with a Creature of a much different Shape from Man, with Reason and Speech, we should be much surprised and shocked at the Sight. For if we try to imagine or paint a Creature like a Man in every Thing else, but that has a Neck four times as long, and great round Eyes five or six times as big, and farther distant, we cannot look upon't without the utmost Aversion, altho' at the same time we can give no account of our Dislike... For 'tis a very ridiculous Opinion, that the common People have got, that 'tis impossible a rational Soul should dwell in any other Shape than ours... This can proceed from nothing but the Weakness, Ignorance, and Prejudice of Men. Christianus Huygens, *New Conjectures Concerning the Planetary Worlds, Their Inhabitants and Productions*, c. 1670 "For 'tis a very ridiculous Opinion ... that 'tis impossible a rational *Soul* should dwell in any other Shape than ours..." The definition of humanity was built upon the possession of a Soul! Admittedly, there are a lot of you who don't believe in Souls, and I'm not implying that you should (although I do). Instead, I am attempting to illuminate the elements of a choice, with the (vain) hope that some rational discussion, some mutual understanding, may ensue. To my point ["At LAST," you who have stayed with me this far >thank you!<, breathe]: we argue and argue where Sentience/Self Awareness begins in the fetus. *Science*, I believe, says sometime late in the second trimester, many pro-lifers argue earlier. I do not know, but I think, more than physical form of the fetus, the pro-lifers fear for the *soul*, the individual breath/spark of Creator-given Life -- indeed, that part of us that makes us Human/Children in the Creator/Parents' eyes. This intangible part of existence, when does it arrive? With sentience? Before sentience? And what happens to that soul, never given a chance to Live? You that don't believe in such things are poised over your keyboards, ready to napalm this pseudo-religious drivel. But before you Flame, REALIZE that the possession of a soul is a very IMPORTANT, nay CRITICAL, aspect of many people's self- and world-view. I did not intend to make an earth shattering point -- indeed, I fear I confused the issue rather than clarify it. (Forgive me, as you have all discovered, I tend to run off at the keyboard sometimes -- "just indulge her, it will pass" ("maybe").) But I believe an understanding of the mechanics of another person's position is helpful in any discussion. Thank you to those who have made it this far. Barb* Jernigan * short for Barbara, descended, some say, from Barbarian, which means strange. If the name fits, wear it! ;-)