Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site denelcor.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!hao!denelcor!neal From: neal@denelcor.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: The Embryo a Parasite? (metaphysical ?) Message-ID: <373@denelcor.UUCP> Date: Tue, 27-Mar-84 21:09:12 EST Article-I.D.: denelcor.373 Posted: Tue Mar 27 21:09:12 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 28-Mar-84 00:42:03 EST References: <7053@watmath.UUCP> <1354@druxv.UUCP>, <492@pyuxn.UUCP>, <1936@cbscc.UUCP>, <364@denelcor.UUCP>, <2079@cbscc.UUCP> Organization: Denelcor, Aurora, CO Lines: 121 ************************************************************************** > 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 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. I need to check further or the BIOLOGICAL definition of parasite. Meanwhile, in a less technical sense of the word (which I believe is more appropriate to the topic), parasites are as parasites do. If an organism exists in or on or otherwise at the expense of another organism "without making useful or adequate return" (Webster again), I believe that we are justified in referring to it (in everyday, non-technical speech) as a parasite. I further believe that "useful or adequate return" only makes sense when applied to individuals not to species. >} >}> 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? For the same reason that you would say the opposite. Only the perspective has changed--not the point I am trying to make. > Tell us Neil, what *is* >the womb for, if not the fetus? The womb is for the fetus in women who choose to let the fetus stay there. The fact that houses are for living in doesn't mean that I have to let you live in my house against my will (even if it would otherwise be vacant). > "Free choice" is a broad term. No one >in civilized society really has it. More to the point, it is a relative term. No one has completely free choice in every aspect of life, granted. That's no excuse for taking away those free choices that we do have though. I would rather live in a society that allows as many free choices as possible. >}> 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. Ok, Ok, we would have to change the procedure for removing the fetus. The point is that we don't at this point have the capability to keep a fetus alive outside its mother's womb no matter how carefully we remove it. This strongly suggests, to me at least, that it needs more than food and oxygen--ask a pregnant woman (especially one that you have forced to stay that way against her will) if all she is giving the fetus is food and oxygen. Incidentally, I suspect that will be an option in the near future (so we better hurry up and settle this before it becomes moot :-) >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? How do you prove anything without an agreed-upon definition? Please enlighten me. >What would you consider an "acceptable" definition? One which we >could apply consistently. See below. > 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. No, that is not the position at all. I AM SURE that the fetus is not a human being. >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? Obviously, I am not going to try to give an EXHAUSTIVE definition of the term "human being". I am willing to suggest enough of a definition to distinguish between a "fetus" and a "human being" though. I propose that we use the old Roman Catholic concept of "quickening"--in more modern terms "viability". A "human being" can live outside of its mother's womb, a "fetus" (or "embryo" or "zygote") cannot. In cases of ANY DOUBT, I would even be willing to stipulate that if the mother wishes an abortion, the procedure would be done with the utmost care. If the organism removed really can survive with just food and oxygen as you pointed out that we all need, then it is a "human being" with all the rights that the rest of us have. Regards, Neal Weidenhofer Denelcor, Inc. !denelcor!neal