You have said this: "What I do base it on is my opinion that the basic rights of all members of the human species should be protected and that fetuses are members of the human species." You have said the fertilized zygote was a son or a daughter...a child. You have said all these were human "persons". You have said they ought to be legal "persons". You have said that all human life after fertilization have "basic human rights". You have said many other related things and they are on the record.
Now, if you are quite done with foolishness--I will close this abortion discussion with a summary statement.
____________________________
When human life becomes a human person is entirely a mater of linguistics--a product of human invention and definition. The most popular arguments in this regard stem from the disciplines of theology, science, and philosophy. Before I continue, here is a quick summary of the most well known opinions: zygote.swarthmore.edu
"WHEN DOES HUMAN LIFE BEGIN?
Here is a note that may generate some discussion and debate. It was occasioned by a bulletin board set up by a political action group at our college. The board claimed that while philosophy and religion may have different opinions concerning when life began, science had no such problems. Students were told that biologists were unanimous in agreeing that life starts at fertilization, and that there was no dispute in the scientific literature. Besides being a parody of science (i.e., that scientific facts are the objective truth and that all scientists agree what these facts mean), it is wrong. I have read a wide range of scientific positions on when life begins, and these positions depend on what aspect of life one privileges in such discussions. Here is my classification scheme concerning when human life begins. You may have others.
The metabolic view. There is no point when life begins. The sperm cell and egg cell are as alive as any other organism.
The genetic view. A new individual is created at fertilization. This is when the genes from the two parents combine to form an individual with unique properties.
The embryological view. In humans, identical twinning can occur as late as day 12 pc. Such twinning produces two individuals with different lives. Even conjoined ("Siamese") twins can have different personalities. Thus, a single individuality is not fixed earlier than day 12. (In religious terms, the two individuals have different souls). Some medical texts consider the stages before this time as a "pre-embryonic". This view is expressed by scientists such as Renfree (1982) and Grobstein (1988) and has been endorsed theologically by Ford (1988), Shannon and Wolter (1990), and McCormick (1991), among others. (Such a view would allow contraception, "morning after pills", and contragestational agents, but not abortion after two weeks).
The neurological view. Our society has defined death as the loss of the cerebral EEG (electroencephalogram) pattern. Conversely, some scientists have thought that the acquisition of the human EEG (at about 27 weeks) be defined as when a human life has begun. This view has been put forth most concretely by Morowitz and Trefil (1992). (This view and the ones following would allow mid-trimester abortions).
The ecological/technological view. This view sees the human life as beginning when it can exist separately from its maternal biological environment. The natural limit of viability occurs when the lungs mature, but technological advances can now enable a premature infant to survive at about 25 wks gestation. (This is the view currently operating in many states. Once a fetus can be potentially independent, it cannot be aborted).
The immunological view. This view sees human life as beginning when the organism recognizes the distinction between self and non-self. In humans, this occurs around the time of birth.
The integrated physiological view. This sees human life as beginning when it has become independent of the mother and has its own functioning circulatory system, alimentary system, and respiratory system. This is the traditional birthday when the baby is born into the world and the umbilical cord is cut."
_______________________________________________________
THEOLOGY
First, let us look at the theological argument; and here I am going to be blunt: The church and the state are separate, and they ought to remain so. The myriad religions of humankind deal with their own particular and peculiar fancies of the supernatural. These fancies are sometimes amusing, and they are occasionally impressive--however, even if the imagination of a particular faith was thought by some legislators to be suitable for the consideration of the State--the entertainment of such considerations would necessarily discriminate against the dogma of other religions, and would thus violate the separation of Church and State.
The province of theology is to inform the INDIVIDUAL moral choice of religious people. It is no business of the State, nor of the social compact. This is all I wish to say about theology.
SCIENCE
Science clearly shows that a fertilized egg carrys the blueprint for the possible development of a distinct individual--separate from the mother, and with independent functioning of organs, etc. This blueprint exists both before and after conception. However, the existence of human life does not tell us what qualities ought to be considered in our efforts to logically and legally define a human person. A scientist can tell us how many chromosomes are in a normal zygote, but so what? Science cannot help us to make a value judgement as to when to acknowledge that human life is PERSONAL life, or when to acknowledge human cells as being an individual under the Constitution.
Obviously, how (and/or when) the judicial and legislative branches decide to define human personhood, has crucial and profound ramifications--not only as to the rights of women to the privacy of their own bodies and minds--but, indeed...for the nature and extent of rights and civil liberties that society will sanction for any one of its members.
These questions are much larger than science. These are questions of human meaning, and they are the province of philosophy, not of science.
PHILOSOPHY
Ethical philosophy is concerned with human life, and with the values appropriate to human association and interaction. It is clear that valuing something for what it MIGHT become is entirely different than valuing something for what it IS. As an analogy, let us pretend that parents have discovered that their two year old daughter will remain forever at that stage of development. Will they still value her for being a thinking, feeling, and loving individual? Of course they will! She will still be valued for WHO she IS. Contrast this, however, with a fertilized egg in vitro (I will use in vitro examples in order to avoid introducing the issue of parasitic dependency). Pretend a genetic flaw will prevent this egg from ever attaining past this stage of development. Will this egg be valued, cherished, loved, and kept alive? Is there anyone incapable of recognizing the difference between the value of something that IS, and the potential value of something which MIGHT be??
Would a normal person save a child? or a petrii dish?
Any entity worthy of being defined as a person is certainly entitled to the equal rights and to the non prejudicial treatment as are enjoyed by other human persons. You made this clear, and, of course I agree with the proposition. However, I think your whole premise is an ugly one--inaccurate, unworthy, ill-conceived, and dangerous. Nobody--theologian, scientist, or philosopher--nobody halfway sane, could ever think of saving the zygote while leaving the child to die. This shows clearly (and unanimously) that people really are capable of discerning the difference in personhood between an egg and a human child. If anyone truly believed that an egg was a person, then they would treat it as a person. Thus, if the in vitro egg was closer to the escape route of the burning building than the child (all things being equal)--then such a person would personally attempt to save, or to support the attempt by those whose duty it is to protect and preserve human rights (firemen, etc.) to save--the egg--EVERY SINGLE TIME. Because, if the egg is a person, then it DOES HAVE the same basic human rights to protection, etc. as does the child in this analogy.
But does anyone other than twofowler (you) SINCERELY believe that the egg is a person--and that it is entitled to the same consideration as little boys and girls who walk and talk and throw rocks? Can the existence of this egg be afforded the equal consideration which is given to the little uncared for waifs who exist in the millions upon our earth, and whom struggle day to day to keep the breath of life from shutting down from lack of food, or from disease--or simply from the blue edge of the sword.
You believe that a fertilized egg is a son, daughter, or a twin. You believe that a fertilized egg has the same rights as the living breathing child who clutches a crayon in her tiny fist. According to you, a fertilized egg has the same basic rights to life as do the twins who live on my block. If the egg was in vitro, and the clinic was burning, you would consider the egg to have the same right to the assistance of the fireman as does the sobbing baby choking on smoke--and screaming for her mommy.
BUT who WOULD save an egg--rather than their son or daughter? You, Twofowler, have been unashamed as to your thoughts and feelings on this. Indeed, when I asked you on what authority you rested your belief that fertilized eggs were persons, and that they had the same basic human rights as other persons (by which I meant: reason, or faith, or a particular scholarship)--your rather flippant response was that you did not require any authority other than your own.
So a fertilized egg has the same right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as does the little girl you tuck into bed at night, and read to sleep?
FIRE IN THE CLINIC
There is a terrible fire in the fertility clinic. A little child is unconscious from smoke inhalation. Next to the child, on a table, is a sealed container with 3 fertilized eggs. The fireman can either save the 3 eggs or the one child. The roof is collapsing. For you, of course, this choice is a no brainer--given your belief that all four of these entities are children, and that they all have the same basic human rights. The State Police, the fire department--all these would be obligated to protect and to defend these children without discrimination based on colour, size, or ability. But I wonder how many people in society share your extremism?
I personally am disgusted at the idea that a fertilized egg ought to be recognized as a legal person with basic human rights. It reduces human value to a cipher. I find the concept to be vicious and ugly. We are never going to see eye to eye on this. You did state that ALL human persons have the same basic human rights, and you did define person.
Do children who have a brain and feelings also have "basic human rights"? Do they have the right to life support off a physical body--to live off the organs and life fluid of a "free human being"? Do I? Do you? If I perfect the technology, can I hook up a child to your body, if their immune system is suppressed...and if they could benefit from a healthy host? Is this a "basic human right" as your remarks logically suggest?
Twofowler? Is there anyone so mindless and so heartless, as to be incapable of discerning the major ethical differences in considering human life that is a blueprint--and human life who is a thinking and feeling person?
All our laws for regulating human interaction are predicated upon the fact that humans exist separately from one another, and that this separateness reveals needs, desires, and values which are often in conflict with other individuals. The idea is to protect what is most precious to individual existence and experience, these being firstly life, and secondly privacy, and thirdly independence. Just because you wish to eat a ham sandwich and masturbate does not require me to do the same. We have separate bodies, separate minds, and separate desires. In order to have individual desires and preferences, one must BE an individual, and one must HAVE a mind. Human rights do not apply to all human life (such as hair cells). They apply only to human persons.
Who is so obtuse as to TRULY believe that a fertilized egg is a human person with "basic human rights"? That the value of a human child is equivalent to the value of an egg? It is absurd to claim that an egg is a person--a person with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is absurd to think that the treatment of a thing ought to be predicated on what it MIGHT become, rather than upon what it actually IS.
Eventually, we will all become corpses, and then dirt underfoot. Should people be treated on the basis of what they WILL become? Such a ridiculous idea. To fail to distinguish between your children and your eggs is to degrade and insult the dignity, the value, the suffering, the joy, and the grandeur of human consciousness and experience. It is to reduce human persons to ciphers. It reduces us to the mindless caprice of pollen riding the high wind of insufferable egos.
If one removes POTENTIALITY from the zygote, one is left with a meaningless speck--without value, without interest. Contrast this with your ten year old--strapping on her skates for the big game. You love her for WHO she is. Even if she were to remain a child till the day you die, you would still love and value her for WHO she IS. She does not need to BECOME anything. She already IS everything that defines a PERSON. She has ACTUAL existence as a human person. She is a separate individual. She has separate feelings, separate thoughts, and a sense of self. She can hope and she can dream and she can wonder...
Is a zygote like your little son or daughter? A zygote is not a WHO. A zygote is a WHAT. We can define WHAT it is. WE cannot define WHO it is. Because the "WHO" is only potential. It is not yet come.
I consider your equivalency of a human cell to a breathing person to be one of the most vicious attacks on humanity that I have ever heard. I am repelled by your vision, and I am disgusted by your choice to publicly flaunt it--apparently without even a modicum of shame.
Well, you have a right to YOUR body--and that does include your brain and your thoughts. But let me leave you with one final thought. Young sperm HAVE 46 chromosomes. I don't know whether or not you masturbate, but you might wish to consider getting snipped--in order to avoid killing what you consider to be a human person. Also bear in mind: if you fertilize an egg, you will be knowingly creating a situation where approximately half of those (to you) "persons" will be killed within seconds or days by Mother Nature or by God. If "in vitro" could lessen the chances of the occurrence of these gazillion daily deaths--then it would seem to me that you have an ethical obligation to avoid intercourse.
I hope our little talks have been helpful to you, and that you will reconsider both masturbation and intercourse (on the happenstance that you may have considered trying either of these), and that you will allow medical science to see that the egg gets a sperm--and that they both get a reasonable chance of survival.
If more couples tried hiking rather than humping--there would be a lot less blueprints destroyed. Furthermore, not one woman anywhere in the world, would need to reach for a MAP--if only all the men would voluntarily agree to being neutered. So many people DO seem capable of operating successfully without brains--so it would seem a small matter for them to operate without balls. Half the world already does...
Having made no attempt to slip a structure, logical or otherwise, under your fancy that an egg is a person with basic human rights--I see no point in further discussing the matter. Your assertion appears ridiculous to me. That your premise places the life of an invisible cell on an equal footing with children and adults with hearts and minds--well, that represents to me--perhaps the most unreasonable and insensate idea that has ever contaminated the sensibilities of our human brothers and sisters.
ABORTION--IS IT MORAL
I have been talking about human rights, and the right of a woman, to choose, with her doctor, what is in her best self interest as a human person. I have given my opinion that an abortion is always just. However, justice does not equate to moral. They are not the same thing, although they do inform one another in varying degrees. It is not always decent or good to choose an abortion. But society does not administer morality; it administers justice. Morality is a personal issue which must be approached at the individual level.
Most abortions, thankfully, happen before brain activity (the cessation of which has become a post natal benchmark for the defining of personal life). As society becomes more supportive and encouraging of birth control, the core incidence of second trimester abortions will become almost unheard of. When it becomes appreciated that virtually every woman will abort at some time in her life (whether spontaneous or induced)--then perhaps the self righteous will be able to appreciate that woman are not evil demons--but they are mothers, sisters, daughters, co-workers, lovers, spouses, and friends. Then perhaps people will forego the "moral" superiority they are proud to feel when they are able to despise the hapless people with unwanted pregnancies. Perhaps they will even come to recognize that the exaggerated frenzy which they exhibit and interpret as "love" for someone else's egg...is usually not "love" at all. But rather it is a cheap and ostentatious display of self importance in one who has difficulty with true intimacy, one who has a terror of the universe and her ways---one who is incapable of understanding the big picture.
Once again: My opinion is that abortions are always just--but they may not always be right. Unwanted pregnancies are not just inconveniences. They force the mother to consider what are often agonizing alternatives. Often the choice is between abortion--and a life as a single mother, struggling outside of the loving partnership that many individuals seek as a fulfilment to their life--the only life they have. These people deserve our compassion and support--not our smugness, not our interference--and certainly not our condemnation. So far they have kept the human race alive. And that is no small matter considering the opposition...
So many of these pregnancies could have been avoided if the church was not selfishly seeking to increase its power by creating a larger army of soldiers. Two thousand years of insanity. It is time to move on.
I have laid out my position which is pretty much the status quo as to the prevailing social opinion. You have also stated clearly what you believe. It took me many posts to get you to cough it up, but it finally came out. You believe that fertilized eggs are persons with the same basic human rights as all other persons. I have told you how I detest this idea. It assails my comprehension. And the fact that you claim it is not a supernatural belief simply leaves me cold. That anyone could watch a child die because they wished to imagine that an egg was also a child, with the same basic human rights to life--well, I consider the thought obscene. But you have a right to your body and your mind--so you also have a right to think what you wish to think.
After a certain stage, abortion becomes increasingly offensive to the sensibilities. It is hoped that thoughtful people will work together to promote a decrease in unwanted pregnancies, and to encourage the earliest termination of unwanted pregnancy. Mother Nature generally makes her decision in this regard within the first month. We ought to aim for the same. |
