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!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: The Status of the Fetus and Its Rights (Pt. 1 of 4) Message-ID: <5923@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 17-Sep-85 20:22:12 EDT Article-I.D.: cbscc.5923 Posted: Tue Sep 17 20:22:12 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 18-Sep-85 04:19:16 EDT References: <429@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <1546@pyuxd.UUCP> <998@brl-tgr.ARPA> <1597@pyuxd.UUCP> <1095@brl-tgr.ARPA> <214@3comvax.UUCP> Reply-To: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (unix-Paul Dubuc,x7836,1L244,59472) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus Lines: 121 A response to Michael McNeil. I'm breaking this into parts, more or less along his divisions. >No, if the fetus were ``human'' in some important sense, then >my conclusion would be that the fetus would have some rights, >whether dependent on the mother or not. For me, therefore, >the abortion debate comes down to this question: Is there a >sense by which -- at the expense of the rights of the woman -- >the fetus must be considered *human*? After long, careful >thought on the subject, I can find no such compelling reason. > >Why must the reason be *compelling*? Because we're talking >about subordinating the rights of one who is agreed by all >to be a living, breathing, feeling and thinking, admittedly >female :-), human being. And it is no minor subordination. Your leaving one thing out here. We are generally talking about subordinating the right to *life* of the fetus to *other* rights of the woman. It makes no sense to even consider the question of whether or not the fetus has any rights apart from this most basic right. Neither can you assume that *any* right one human being has can take precidence over *all* the rights of another. >Many, mostly males it seems, talk as if it is but a *small* >matter for a woman to be forced to take the trouble and risk >of carrying a fetus to term and delivering it. Many others, >of course, see it as quite proper dues-paying -- on the woman's >part -- for having led a ``loose life.'' (Need I say :-) ?) Mostly males? Paul Torek keeps sighting a study every time this accusation is made that shows that most Americans who hold pro-life views are women. And why speak only of the risk of pregnancy? Is abortion risk free or even less risky by comparison? >Getting back to the question of whether ``new life begins at >conception,'' what biology and medicine *have* demonstrated >over the last century or so is that there is *no new life* -- >life began once, long ago, and all life today continues that >thread, now spun out into many strands, in an unbroken and >(hopefully) unending sequence. Life is continuous -- the >life of the parents continues unabated in the offspring. I think you are confusing the terms "human life" and "a human life". When speaking of whether a given individual has a right to have her life protected, it makes sense to discuss when that individual's human life began. >What Determines You? > >> >> I refuse to >> >> treat a class of beings that once included myself as we treat germs or >> >> bugs or worms. [MATT ROSENBLATT] >> >> > "You" were also once a sperm cell. And/or an egg? And/or inanimate >> > matter. [RICH ROSEN] >> >> No. You know when a unique genetic entity comes into existence with the >> genes that determine who "I" am. [MATT ROSENBLATT] > >Unfortunately for this idea, Matt, your ``unique genetic entity'' >does *not* determine who *you* are. The fertilized egg still >has the ability to split into separate embryos or even to combine >with another egg to produce a chimeric individual. If you had >an identical twin, that twin would have the same identical DNA >code as you do, but would he be you? If you were cloned, would >the clone be you? The clear answer has to be ``no'' (I hope I'm >not putting words in your mouth, Matt), and the reason is that >the brain, the memories, and the mind occupying it, in addition >to the genes, have a great deal to do with who *you* are, Matt. How does this in any way answer the question of whether or not those humans have the right to live? One, or two ... what does it matter? The point still stands that, from conception (or a similar event) a human or humans grow. The fact that Matt may have an identical twin or clone who is not "him" does not mean that Matt or the other are not human beings with a right to live. >Agreed, the fertilized human egg does have the *potentiality* >of growing into a baby, a child, and ultimately an adult human. >However, the individual sperm and egg carried just as much of that >potentiality *before* their union, when they were just as living! No, their potentuality did not exist apart from that union. The potential of the zygote does not depend on any other positive external event. There need be no further encouragment. Barring any interference (intended or otherwise) she will realize her potential. >So what if the chromosomes carried by the fertilized egg are >composed of ``human'' DNA. Human DNA is not magical. Did you >know, Matt, that human DNA is 99% identical to chimpanzee DNA? >Are *chimpanzees* to be forbidden to have abortions because >virtually all of the DNA being aborted would be *human*? By some measure it is 99% identical. Apparently the other 1% is very significant (like 1% of the national debt) otherwise chimps giving birth to mutated offspring who turned out to be humans would be a fairly common event. >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! >What are you going to do, Matt, give it the right to vote? :-) Because it can't have the right to vote, it ought not have the right to live either? This has sad implications for my 19 mo. old daughter. :-) >Levity aside, the ``pro-life'' movement philosophically >maintains -- nay, *demands* -- that this single non-sentient >cell's ``human'' rights outway the rights of an adult human! Why "outwheigh"? Why not "equal"? It is an accepted fact that certain rights I may have do not outweigh your right to live. (Continued) -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com