Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ames-lm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!amd70!dual!ames-lm!barry
From: barry@ames-lm.UUCP (Kenn Barry)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortions and Aristotle
Message-ID: <357@ames-lm.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 24-Jun-84 15:00:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: ames-lm.357
Posted: Sun Jun 24 15:00:58 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Jun-84 03:21:30 EDT
References: <351@ames-lm.UUCP>, <3120@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 82

[<+>]
     My thanks to Paul Dubuc for his interesting response to my
posting. I may have bitten off more than I can chew, but let me
try to clarify my original point.

     Man is a symbol-maker. In order to think at all, we abstract
what seem to be the significant features of the reality we observe,
and make from this symbols to stand for the groupings and features
and characteristics we are able to extract from our sense-data. As
Kant pointed out, it is this self-constructed symbolic reality we
really live in, for our contact with 'objective' reality is only
indirect, via our sense-organs.
     Our constructions are of course not random (unless we're insane).
They are constrained by the necessity of being a good map of the
sense impressions we receive. However (here comes the point), the
objective universe is not similarly constrained by our symbolic
maps of it. It is free to throw new phenomena at us which do not
neatly equate to any of the categories we had thus far constructed.
     A case in point: one very fundamental categorization we impose
on the universe is alive/not alive. It long seemed that anything in
the real world would have to fall unambiguously into one of those
two groups. But then viruses came along. They obstinately insisted
on having characteristics that, by the pre-existing classifications,
made them unquestionably alive, and also certainly non-living.
     I don't know if this particular debate still rages among the
biologists, but it makes a good illustration in any case. The first
mental reaction to such a problem is to examine the evidence
carefully, to see if the new phenomenon (virus) is perhaps closer
to one of the two pre-existing categories. If so, one can modify
one's categories to include the new phenomenon, and still leave a
fairly clear dividing line between the two possibilities.
     The other possibility is to discover that no clear division is
possible. Some things occur along a continuum, with no clear
dividing line. In such cases, it is important to understand that
the categories we assign are derived from our observations, and not
the other way around.
     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?
     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. 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.
     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 opinions expressed herein are my own foolishness, and do not
necessarily reflect the views of anyone that matters.]

                                                Kenn Barry
                                                NASA-Ames Research Center
                                                Moffett Field, CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Electric Avenue:              {dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames-lm!barry