Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site 3comvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm
From: michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: The Status of the Fetus and Its Rights (Humanity Defined)
Message-ID: <241@3comvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 30-Sep-85 17:31:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: 3comvax.241
Posted: Mon Sep 30 17:31:05 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 2-Oct-85 05:27:17 EDT
References: <429@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <1546@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: 3Com Corp; Mountain View, CA
Lines: 212

[*Ohhhh*, yoooouuu'll *never* catch me, you Line Eater Monster, yo...]

KEY:   > > Me   > Rich Rosen   "Matt" = Matt Rosenblatt

> > What "human life" means is subject to definition.  If you
> > don't believe this, Matt and Rich, why did Pope Paul III in
> > 1537 feel the necessity to issue his papal bull *Sublimis Deus*
> > which revealed the Indians of North and South America to be
> > *human beings*, endowed with soul and reason?  Clearly, *some*
> > people didn't find Indians' humanity to be all that obvious!  
> 
> The fact was that if they had been using a serious scientific
> investigation (which shows that we are all of the same species) rather
> than ancient superstitions and prejudices, the definition would have
> been obvious.  Furhtermore, the criterion of autonomy is an important
> one is determining whether an organism is a living organism or not.  

Proper *definition* of "human life" is necessary to pick out the
relevant from the irrelevant among all the myriad of characteristics
which we collectively identify as "human."  The very facts that
"pro-lifers" use to support their conclusion -- e.g., that the egg
contains human DNA, that it grows up into a human being, indeed our
knowledge that the egg even *exists* -- stem from serious scientific
investigations.  Matt et al. [<- note correct usage everybody!] use
these facts to argue that the fertilized egg deserves human rights!  

And, to an initial extent, they are right, and you are wrong, Rich.  
(Sorry.)  Because the fertilized egg *is* a member of the human
species -- it is biologically alive, it contains human DNA, and it
is functionally similar to the many billions of cells that compose
the human being it will later become.  Your criterion of "autonomy"
is not one that biologists use.  Even parasites are considered to be
living things!  So what if, at this stage in its life, the egg must
live in the environment of the womb, rather than "the open air" and
sunlight we adults enjoy.  Where the egg *lives* does not affect its
status as "life."  All these are results from "serious scientific
investigation," Rich, as you should know.  However, you then state:  

> Spermatozoa and ova are alive and independent in the context of
> their environment (the testes and the ovaries).  

Glad you now agree with me, Rich.  But why are you contradicting
what you just said?  (Spermatozoa and ova depend on the testes and
ovaries for sustenance, while eggs are "alive and independent in
the context of their environment" -- the womb).  You go on to say:    

> Are they human?  Of course not.  Partly because even if we
> reproduced parthenogenetically, the entity at that point is
> not capable of independent life in an environment appropriate
> for humans: "the open air", so to speak.  Neither is the fetus
> until very late in the pregnancy.  

Your "autonomy" criterion, the requirement that the entity be
"capable of independent life in an environment appropriate for
humans" *is*, I maintain, a *definition* for "humanity."  Since
this particular definition ignores the fact that living things can
live in many quite different environments, it is not a *scientific*
definition for humanity.  In fact, it is rather circular:  "Humans
are creatures which live in an environment appropriate for humans."  

(Incidentally, I hold out the hope that someday humans from Earth
will contact intelligent life elsewhere, and we will be *able* to
accept their basic "humanity," and not, say, serve them up for
dinner.  This would be rather hard if "humanity" is *defined* as
"breathes oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere at 25 degrees C.," etc.)  

No, what we need to be able to do with a definition of humanity is
to separate the wheat from the chaff, to discard those accurate but
irrelevant indicators we have heretofore associated with humanity
from those that have real relevance to the question of whether a
being should be considered "human," deserving of "human rights."  

When we look at available societal definitions for when humanity
begins, what do we find?  Let's look at just a *few* possibilities.  

1.  Many peoples of the past regularly practiced infanticide, then
    in most cases proceeded to humanely and lovingly bring up the
    babies they allowed to live.  "Humanity," as far as *these*
    people were concerned, somewhat *followed* birth.  
2.  In the law of the United States at present, some form of
    "humanity" for the fetus begins at the third trimester.  
3.  The Catholic Church long held that "humanity" arrived at the
    "quickening," which does not occur until well into the pregnancy.  
4.  Some in this newsgroup have been observed to argue that abortion
    should be allowed for a time following fertilization, due to the
    egg's (temporary) ability to fission into multiple individuals.  
5.  Matt and other "pro-lifers" place "humanity" in the fertilized
    egg because, for example, Matt feels that any being with his
    own "unique genetic entity" (which may or may not actually *be*
    unique), any being which as he put it "once included myself,"
    simply *has* to be regarded as "human," to be protected by law.  
6.  *Brave New World*ers in my original article similarly regarded
    all individual human sperm and ova as "human," because they
    also bear the "unique genetic entity," they also "once included
    myself," they also are just as living, etc.  ("Pro-lifers" will
    yell, "That's ridiculous!  The cases are *not* similar!"  ;-))  

You, Rich, argue that a "human being" must be "autonomous" and must
live in an oxygen atmosphere.  And so on, and so on.  Etc., etc.  

Can't you, can't everyone, see that these criteria are all basically
*identical*?  They are *all equally arbitrary* -- drawn almost, one
might say, at random from the great bazaar of characteristics which
humans do generally share, but frequently much other life shares too.  
One person says, "I take *this* to be human."  A second person states,
"No, *that* is human!"  A third person declares, "You're *both* wrong.  
*This* is what being *human* means!  (Moreover, *you're* a murderer!)"  

As I mentioned in my previous article, *what is human* is the
philosophical issue of all time!  We're not going to solve this
problem to everyone or even most peoples' satisfaction.  Given this
fundamental disagreement, how can we arrive at a practical guideline
that results in the least hurt done to the fewest "people"?  Is there
*any* criterion which can sensibly and *scientifically* be selected?  

I believe a non-arbitrary, scientific criterion for humanity *can*
be found -- at least for those willing to search for it.  Let's
consider what properties such a human definition might possess.  

The first conclusion that I think we can *definitely* reach is that
a sensible definition for humanity does *not* include "humans are
living entities which may someday develop into adult human beings."  

This definition for humanity, often cited by "pro-lifers" -- see,
for example, Matt's "once included myself" criterion -- must be
dismissed, precisely because the unfertilized egg and sperm share
this property.  Virtually no one wants to give them "human rights."  
In my judgment, allowing this criterion would lead inevitably to a
nightmarish society such as the *Brave New World* of my article.  

Briefly, eggs and sperm are "human," and since these beings die in
huge numbers during ordinary human reproduction, all engagers in this
"inefficient and animalist" process are *mass murderers*.  Sperm and
eggs must be treasured and incubated within the State's artificial
wombs, so all may be saved and mature as human beings, incidentally
after having been thoroughly conditioned as they grow up by the State.  
(I'll not discuss technical issues regarding the feasibility of this
process here in this article.  All flamers on low/standby, please!)  

The point is that one cannot require the "humanity" of fetuses,
embryos, or fertilized eggs for this reason without also requiring
humanity for sperm and ova.  Is this what you "pro-lifers" really
want to do?  If not, you'd better come up with *another reason*.  

No, if we want a scientific, that is, a rational and non-arbitrary
definition for when "humanity" and therefore "human rights" should
begin, we must throw away the extraneous rationales exhibited within
the definitions of humanity cited above.  Just as Pythagoras, in
order to prove his theorem regarding right triangles, had to make
direct use of a basic property of right angles (i.e., four turns
and you're back where you started), for us to find a practical
definition which "results in the least hurt done to the fewest
people," we must make *use* of this premise to arrive at our answer.  

In other words, who is or could be *hurt* by the alternative social
situations of abortion being legal or illegal?  "Pro-lifers" would
say, "Millions of fetuses are dying horribly now.  If abortion were
illegal, a few thousand women might die -- as they attempted to
*murder* their babies! -- in botched abortions.  The requirement of
minimum *hurt* obviously favors saving the fetuses who are dying!"  

There is a major problem with this point of view, and that is to
be "hurt" requires a substantial amount of sophistication.  Fetuses
at an early enough stage in the pregnancy (when abortions ought to
be performed, if they are to occur at all) do not have the nervous
system and brain -- therefore, *mind* -- to experience being "hurt"
in anything like a "human" way.  And I don't mean just the physical
experience of *pain* (one could always anesthetize the fetus prior to
aborting it if that were all there were to it), but more importantly
the special poignance we associate with "snuffing out" a being which
has a mind, is capable of experience and feeling, and has attained a
near human level of sophistication and complexity.  However, it must
be the degree of sophistication the entity possesses *then* -- not
what it may have later when it grows up.  Remember, we must rule out
future capabilities -- eggs and sperm *also* grow up to become people.  

So just how sophisticated *is* the fetus early on in a pregnancy?  
Well, after fertilized eggs grow beyond their "protozoan" stage, for
a goodly period of time the creatures fetuses most closely resemble
anatomically and physiologically are certain types of *worm*.  Now,
I don't want to put down worms -- they're perfectly fine creatures.  
But should an adult human be required to let a *worm* dominate her
life for the better part of a year?  That's a heavy penalty for a
person, never convicted of any crime, to be required to pay!  

When millions of unthinking, unfeeling, uncaring, and worm-like deaths
are weighed against the death of even *one* thinking, feeling, caring
*woman* -- I know where *my* balance lies.  Millions times nothing is
still nothing -- a woman, to coin a phrase, is infinity.  Pro-life's
"balance" is simply a prescription for *genocide* against women!  

-- 

Michael McNeil
3Com Corporation     "All disclaimers including this one apply"
(415) 960-9367
..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm

	...  Were we to meet with a Creature of a much different Shape
	from Man, with Reason and Speech, we should be much surprised and
	shocked at the Sight.  For if we try to imagine or paint a Creature
	like a Man in every Thing else, but that has a Neck four times as
	long, and great round Eyes five or six times as big, and farther
	distant, we cannot look upon't without the utmost Aversion, altho'
	at the same time we can give no account of our Dislike...  For
	'tis a very ridiculous Opinion, that the common People have got,
	that 'tis impossible a rational Soul should dwell in any other
	Shape than ours...  This can proceed from nothing but the
	Weakness, Ignorance, and Prejudice of Men.  
		Christianus Huygens, *New Conjectures Concerning the
		Planetary Worlds, Their Inhabitants and Productions*,
		c. 1670


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com