Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!brl-tgr!matt From: matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: The Status of the Fetus and Its Rights Message-ID: <1476@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Fri, 13-Sep-85 11:31:04 EDT Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.1476 Posted: Fri Sep 13 11:31:04 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 16-Sep-85 00:00:22 EDT References: <429@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <1546@pyuxd.UUCP> <998@brl-tgr.ARPA> <1597@pyuxd.UUCP> <1095@brl-tgr.ARPA> <214@3comvax.UUCP> Organization: Ballistic Research Lab Lines: 182 MICHAEL MCNEIL has posted a well-written, well-thought-out article. It is 448 lines long, though, so I will respond to only a few sections where I have something to say about our disagreement. > So what that the ``genetic entity'' that you possess, Matt -- > whether unique or not -- has just come into physical existence. > At that moment it is still but a single quantity of the chemical > substance deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), located within a single > eucaryotic cell similar in all functional respects to an amoeba! > . . . > Levity aside, the ``pro-life'' movement philosophically > maintains -- nay, *demands* -- that this single non-sentient > cell's ``human'' rights [outweigh] the rights of an adult human! You've got it! ITS right to live outweighs HER right to kill it. > Anti-abortionists -- as I recall, including you, Matt -- > usually now talk about, ``Well, what if your parents had > decided to abort *you* -- how would you feel then!'' I don't recall saying such a thing to anyone -- it's an _ad hominem_ argument that proves nothing. The Reverend Jesse Jackson, however, did write: ". . . I was born out of wedlock (and against the advice that my mother received from her doctor), and therefore abortion is a personal issue for me." ("How We Respect Life Is Over-riding Moral Issue," National Right to Life News, January, 1977) > Suppose *Brave New World* arrives (I'm not recommending it), > and society takes *all* of the sperm from a selected man, all > of the eggs from chosen women, fertilizes the eggs *in vitro*, > and incubates the embryos within *Brave New World*'s advanced > artificial wombs. > . . . > And these children are not all identical, they are not clones. > Every one of them possesses that ``unique genetic entity'' > that you prize, Matt. And every act of ordinary ``old-style'' > human reproduction, every man's wet-dream, every woman's > non-impregnated fertility cycle, consigns these real, > potential human beings to death in their millions. > . . . > The conclusion, I think, is inescapable -- that human beings, > before their existence becomes ``real'' not potential in some > important sense, do *not* have the right to ``dictate'' that > they actually be made to exist. *Of course*, those that cross > this threshold, wherever it is, must be nurtured and cherished! Boy, do I have problems with this analogy! How does the government take ALL the sperm from a man, when his body is constantly generating new sperm cells? Even the Communists in Russia or Bolshevik China would have to lock up every man in the country, whereupon their "Brave New World" would promptly die of economic collapse. "Real, potential human beings"? Make up your mind -- are they real, or only potential? The whole problem lies in deciding when they become real. Natural. Natural. It's natural (and usually benign) for pregnant women to carry to term and give birth. It's not natural for every sperm cell, every egg, to give rise to an embryo, a fetus, and an individual. It takes force to kill the fetus. It would take force to establish the Brave New World control over germ cells in your analogy. In both cases, the force would be against nature. > Anti-abortionists charge that allowing abortion on demand will > lead inevitably to legalized killing of babies, children, the > feeble-minded, and old people (next -- *us*). These are the > ``slippery slopes.'' I say this could *only* happen if we as > a society loose sight of what it really means to be *human*. Maybe we already have lost sight. To see how it could happen, and has been known to happen, read the article by C. Everett Koop, M.D., starting on page 41 of Ronald Reagan's book, "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation" (Nashville, Nelson, 1984). > Fortunately, I think that society as a whole is smarter than the > ``pro-life'' philosophy. For example, I think this is reflected > in the growing acceptance of ``brain death'' rather than ``heart > stop'' as an accurate indicator of when the ``person we knew'' has > gone. And the "brain death" statutes define brain death in terms of the permanent cessation of electrical activity of the brain. So if such electrical activity begins in the fetus at 12 weeks' gestation, does that mean that such a fetus is then "brain alive" and entitled to be considered human? > Matt, as I recall, in another article you ask (pardon me, I'm > paraphrasing from memory): Shouldn't we give the fetus the > ``benefit of the doubt''? What if someday we ``discover'' > that they're *really human* and we've been *mass murderers*? > > I hope I've made it clear that what we ``discover'' about humanity > is strongly affected by how we *define* humanity. Did you know, > Matt, that early microscopists reportedly saw a ``little man'' > riding within each sperm cell? What if we ``discover'' that they > were right? Shouldn't we give sperm the ``benefit of the doubt'' > and declare it murder to allow a single sperm to die? How are we going to discover that? It's not there, and we know it. > That is what ``pro-lifers'' are doing, really. They are projecting > a ``little man'' into the fertilized egg -- rather than into sperm, > but otherwise it's a similar idea. There is no evidence whatsoever > for ``little men'' within eggs -- and plenty of evidence that being > ``human'' requires a *brain*! Who says they're projecting a "little man" into the fertilized egg? I haven't heard any pro-lifer argue in that way. And whether being "human" requires a brain is a matter of definition -- how can evidence affect a definition? Many who argue for abortion-on-demand in this net claim that the fetus is not human until birth, brain or no brain. Many who argue against abortion claim life begins at conception, brain or no brain. > Yet, we are to give this non-sentient > cell human rights, just for the ``benefit of the doubt,'' and it is > to be *murder* when a woman attempts to use her body as she chooses! Well, I have squawked in the past about fast-and-loose use of the word "murder," but basically, Yes, we are to give this non-sentient cell human rights -- at least the right not to be killed. > I am feeling my way here towards a new ``standard definition of > humanity,'' a definition predicated on the *existence* of that > organ humans depend on so heavily -- the *brain*, including the > cerebral cortex -- together with a significant degree of electrical > functioning within it. Who determines what a significant degree of electrical activity is? Keep on feeling your way. > We're talking about State intrusion > into privacy, here. . . . Who among us will step forward to give up > all of their ``right of privacy''? A worthwhile point. But we're not talking about giving up "all" of their right to privacy. It's only where the right to privacy comes into conflict with the right to life that we say privacy has to take second place. It's not an absolute right, you know: the state has a duty to interfere with someone who abuses his wife or children, even if stopping him requires invading the privacy of his home. > (Another very large group within ``pro-life'' is simply and cold- > bloodedly intent on dismantling the sexual and women's revolutions, > by the traditional method of making women ``pay for their play'' -- > keeping them barefoot and pregnant, and socially ostracizing them.) Who? Who is intent on doing such a thing? Why, people who don't believe these revolutions resulted in unalloyed good. That's not surprising. The American Revolution resulted in slavery continuing in North America long after it had been abolished in England. The French Revolution led to the Reign of Terror. The Russian Revolution led to the deliberate starvation of the kulaks. Even good revolutions often have bad effects. Are you going to argue that the sexual and women's revolutions have had no bad effects? Stopping one of the bad effects of the sexual and women's revolutions -- namely, abortion on demand -- will not "dismantle" those revolutions. > I remember thousands of women > who *insisted* on the right to control their own bodies -- > dying at the hands of *butchers*! ``Pro-lifers'' say, ``They > deserved it! Which pro-lifers say, "They deserved it"? They didn't deserve to die, any more than their fetuses deserved to die. ------- It's not the bloodiness of an abortion I object to -- childbirth is bloody, too. It's the needless snuffing out of a human life that I believe has already begun, certainly by the time the woman knows she is pregnant. Your arguments make sense, most of them, if we agree with your definitions and your values. I don't. -- Matt Rosenblatt ". . . I have set before thee life and death, the blessing and the curse: therefore choose life, that thou mayest live, thou and thy seed." Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com