Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: The Embryo a Parasite?  (metaphysical ?)
Message-ID: <2079@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 23-Mar-84 11:28:37 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.2079
Posted: Fri Mar 23 11:28:37 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Mar-84 09:39:02 EST
References: <7053@watmath.UUCP> <1354@druxv.UUCP>, <492@pyuxn.UUCP>, <1936@cbscc.UUCP>, <364@denelcor.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <SCCS>, Columbus
Lines: 98

A response to Neal Weidenhofer's response to me:

}>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a parasite is a *foriegn* organism that
}>lives inside it's host and is also harmful to the normal bodily functions.
}
}Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines parasite as "...an organism
}living in or on another oraginism in parasitism..."  No mention is made
}of "foreign" or "harmful".  (The definition of parasitism includes the
}words "usu[ally] injures"--but it doesn't take much stretching to see that
}that applies to a fetus/embryo also.)

I wouldn't give Webster's (any other English dictionary) credit for an
exahustive *biological* definition of "parasitism".  Look up the word in the
Random House Unabridged dictionary and you won't find the word "usually".  It
is understood that any parasite is foreign.  It is a different organism
*in kind* than the host.  It enters the host as an organism.  It doesn't
become one there.

It is absurd to equate our method of reproduction with a parasitic
infection.  The embryo was formed with an egg produced by the mother.  
It is the same *in kind* as the mother.

}
}>If a person is infected with a parasite, there would be something wrong
}>with that person if, instead of wanting it removed, they loved it and
}>nurtured it.  Well, many women love those little embryos and go to great
}>lengths not to hurt them, while others consider them a burden.  So are
}>we then to determine whether or not the embryo is a parasite subjectively,
}>based on the woman's point of view?  I think not.  A parasite is a parasite.
}>It is not one because some people view it as such.
}
}Au contraire, any reasonable definition of parasite is relative to the
}host.

True, but you have to be consistent.  If the embryo is a parasite in one
woman it is a parasite in them all.  Parasitism describes the way a parasite
functions.  The "function" of it does not change based on whether we think
it does or not.  The whole thrust behind defining the embryo as a parasite
is to justify its removal as such, just as we would remove a tapeworm.
If woman who wants to be pregnant are really loving a parasite, then they
are pretty foolish, right?  Let's all get rid of this infection called
humanity and move on to extinction :-).

}
}>			We can say that the tapeworm does not belong in
}>our intestine.
}
}>From the tapeworm's point of view, it certainly does.
}
}>		 But we cannot say that the human embryo does not belong
}>in its mother's womb.
}
}Those of us who believe in free choice would leave that decision to the
}mother.
}

Why do you switch perspectives here.  With the tapeworm, its point of
view matters, but that of the fetus does not?  Tell us Neil, what *is*
the womb for, if not the fetus?  "Free choice" is a broad term.  No one
in civilized society really has it.

}>							     There is nothing
}>that is added to the embryo (except food and oxygen -- don't we all need it?)
}>to make it more human as time goes on.
}
}If that were true, we could do away with this whole discussion by placing
}aborted fetuses in incubators and adopting them out.

If they survive being cut to pieces or suctioned to shreds or poisoned
with a saline solution.  Right.

}
}>I would say that anyone has the right to remove anything they want from
}>their body, but not when it results in the death of another human being.
}>(Yes I will keep calling the fetus, zygote, embryo, whatever a human
}>being until it is proved otherwise.)
}
}Please stop begging the question--proof has nothing to do with it
}until/unless we can come up with an accepatable definition of "human
}being".  Incidentally, Webster's (op. cit.) doesn't come close to 
}taking a position either way.
}

Proof has everything to do with it.  How do you prove that you
are a human being?  By your own definition, or by Webster's?
What would you consider an "acceptable" definition?  One which we
could apply consistently.  If you want to take the position that we
don't know whether the fetus is  human or not, you still can't justify
killing it with ignorance.  Better to give it the benefit of the
doubt.  When you're hunting game you don't just shoot at what might not
be human.  You make sure or don't shoot at all.

Is there any in the pro-choice camp that are eager to come up with
a good consistent definition of human life?  I'd like to hear it.
Can we suspend the death penalty for the human fetus until we
find out what it is?

Paul Dubuc