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! ;-)