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!mgnetp!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortions and Aristotle
Message-ID: <3160@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 29-Jun-84 12:51:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbscc.3160
Posted: Fri Jun 29 12:51:49 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 1-Jul-84 06:16:21 EDT
References: <351@ames-lm.UUCP>, <3120@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <SCCS>, Columbus
Lines: 83


A response to Kenn Barry:

>...  This is the situation I see when we try to categorize the human
>fetus as either human/non-human. The process of human ova and sperm
>uniting and becoming (eventually) a fully-functional human being is
>a very gradual one, with no unambiguous dividing line where
>'humanity' begins, provided by the observations. There are two signal
>events - fertilization and birth. Indeed, most of the abortion
>argument seems to center on which of these two events should be
>considered the 'human' starting-point. But neither is a clean
>separation-point. At birth a child acquires a truly separate body
>of its own, but a well-developed fetus delivered early by surgery
>can also often be kept alive outside the mother's womb. Similarly,
>even though conception seems like the beginning of the process of
>'humanization', parthenogenesis is possible, and even cloning may be
>possible one day. Are we to argue therefore for the 'humanity' of
>an unfertilized human egg?

The logic here does not follow.  If parthenogenesis and cloning are
possible, then humanity starts at the point that these events occurr.
They are analogous to fertilization.  This dosen't make the unfertilized
egg a human.  Biologically, fertilization is only non-arbitrary point
that which a human can be said to come into existence.  That is the
only point at which a unique individual comes into being.

>     What I was trying to say in my original article, was that by
>recognizing that the dividing line we draw between 'human' and
>'non-human' *has* to be somewhat arbitrary, we can deal with trying
>to find the most *sensible* way to categorize, rather than trying
>to force the facts to fit our preconceived notions that the
>distinction between human and non-human is a fact to be discovered,
>and not a definition to be agreed upon.

The dividing line does not *have* to be arbitrary.  What facts have been
forced?  Your suggestion seems to promote an acceptance of a certain
lack of knowledge.

>We can even, as I suggested,
>create a third category, call it "pre-human", define it as having
>some of the qualities we think of as 'human', but not others, and
>accord it some human rights, but not others. Or we can stick to just
>two categories if we want to, as long as we remember that the
>precise location of the dividing line is bound to be somewhat
>arbitrary, and that arguing about whether ambiguous cases are
>'really' human is to ascribe to our human definitions an absoluteness
>that they do not possess.

The only human right that has any real application to the fetus is
the right to live. The question is, are you going to afford it this
right?  If it doesn't have that one, what others can it have?  Your
abstract concept sounds plausible on the surface, but when you get
down to applying critera for what is human or pre-human (seems to
me that this is just another way of saying human or non-human.) you
will run into much practical difficulty.

>     Contrary opinions will be read with interest. Do keep in mind
>that I am *not* saying that our classifications of human/non-human
>are totally arbitrary. They are constrained by our perceptions of
>objective reality, and are quite useful. I am only saying that
>objective reality does not provide us with an exact location
>where the human/non-human line should be drawn, only an
>approximate one.

The synthetic reasoning you use has a deadening effect on an
abstract persuit of the truth.  It may seem practical to apply
it to specific cases, but the principle when widely applied leaves
us with nothing to be known for certain.  The restraint you place
on it is artificial and, in itself, arbitrary.  There is no
concrete difference between saying something is "somewhat arbitrary"
and "totally arbitrary".  As soon as you embrace "arbitrariness"
in your persuit of knowledge, you put a certain elastic quality
on the truth.  That may be fine for things that don't matter much
but in drawing the line between killing a non-human and a human,
we had better try to be certain, or else give the fetus the benefit
of our doubts.

-- 

Paul Dubuc 		{cbosgd, ihnp4} !cbscc!pmd

  The true light that enlightens every one was coming
  into the world...		(John 1:9)