Is a fetus innocent life?

Religions > Atheism > Is a fetus innocent life?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 2 of 13

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"quibbler"
Date:	02 May 2004 06:36:40 PM
Object:	Is a fetus innocent life?

One often here's from the anti-abort crowd that a fetus, embryo, etc is
"innocent" life.
Even if one were to grant that a fetus has reached a meaningful level of
sentience (which is doubtful during most of pregnancy), one wonders upon
what basis is can be determined that a fetus is "innocent". Here are a
few standards upon which one might evaluate the claim of fetal
innocence. (Other people may wish to include additional categories).
(Judeo) Christian Standard:
According to Paul in Romans 3 "all have sinned and fall short of the
glory of God". Despite numerous apologetics which try to explain that
Paul does not really mean what he says, the doctrine of original sin has
been adopted by many of the thousands of variant sects of xianity on
the basis of this and other statements in the new and old testament. By
this standard we all bear some sin, usually presumed to be inherited
through Adam's fall, which would imply that a fetus or even a zygote
carries the stain of sin (and death) with it. Furthermore, even if one
does not accept the doctrine of original sin, many Xians believe that
one must accept jesus during one's life in order to be saved from
damnation. It is quite clear that a fetus cannot accept or profess
faith in jesus due to its own cognitive inability, which suggests that
it better be guilty of something, for how could a just god punish it
otherwise? Finally, irrespective of these other standards, it could be
argued, for example, that the fetus may be guilty of offenses including
stealing food from the mother, not keeping the sabbath, not honoring or
obeying its parents, sexually violating its own mother (uncovering her
nakedness) and, in the extreme, causing serious injury or death to the
mother. BTW, I'm not suggesting that I believe any of this theological
piffle, but it should cast doubt on the idea that a fetus can be easily
judged innocent, by Judeo Xian religious standards.
Legal Standard:
By the standards of a variety of modern legal systems the fetus could be
judged guilty of one or more crimes. It could be judged guilty of
trespassing within the body of the mother as well as physically
assaulting her at numerous times through the pregnancy. it is not clear
that the fetus has the intention of committing harm to the mother, but
not all laws or legal systems require that intentional harm be shown.
Additionally, some things like stealing, as mentioned above could be
alleged, especially if the mother is unwilling to bear the fetus in the
first place. The fetus could likewise be said to violate the mother's
right to privacy, her civil rights, including the fourth amendment
"right of the people to be secure in their persons". Unwilling,
uncompensated pregnancy could even be seen as tantamount to slavery.
Ethical Standard:
According to a number of ethical standards the fetus could be seen to be
physically imposing its will upon the mother by force. The fetus
attempts to assert its own rights above and beyond those of the mother.
A fetus has no regard for the utility or the consequences of pregnancy
and the impact that it has upon the mother as well as the society. The
fetus does not appear to follow principles such as the Golden Rule or
the Categorical Imperative. It recognizes no duty, nor does it have
concern about the happiness or survival of others. If it has an opinion
at all, it appears to believe that others owe it food and other forms of
free support.
Therefore, on none of these accounts can we state unequivocally that the
fetus is an "innocent" life. However, I'd be happy to entertain (and be
entertained by) any serious arguments for why a fetus should be
considered innocent despite the above statements. This is not to say
that I think that "innocence" is a particularly relevant standard to
apply to a fetus or an embryo or a zygote. But if anyone wants to
discuss the relevance of fetal innocence then I encourage them to do so.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.

User: "LP"
Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life?	12 May 2004 04:12:13 PM

On Wed, 12 May 2004 13:05:18 GMT,

(Paul Anderson)
wrote:

On 12 May 2004 06:38:07 -0500, LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Tue, 11 May 2004 20:16:57 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:

...

Value is irrelevant.

...

Value is not irrelevant.

...

Value is subjective and thus useless in such a discussion. No two
people would ever agree on value in such a situation.

The value of the fetus is the central point of this entire thread.
My posts have all been directed at showing why I see a fetus as
having more value than those that prefer the convenience of using
abortion as a form of birth control.

Let me get this straight:

You see the fetus as having *more value* than the pregnant woman.

No, I have never suggested that you should kill the mother to save the
baby,.

Since we are talking about early abortion as well, you see a embryo of
a few weeks gestation as more valuable than a pregnant woman.
Contrawise, you see the woman as less valuable than her embryo.
Such an embryo, without the woman, is routinely tossed into the trash.
Thus you view pregnant women as less valuable than common household
garbage.

Fortunately you are working from a false assumption of " the
convenience of using abortion as a form of birth control."

I know for a fact that there are some who do this.

A fetus is not an independent entity ...

A fetus is an independent entity ...

A fetus is not an entity in the meaning of "1 a : BEING, EXISTENCE;
especially : independent, separate, or self-contained existence."

... A cancer is made up of live
cells. Do you likewise object to it's removal?

I addressed this in an earlier post. Cancer is not a stage in the life
cycle of human beings.

Sperm is a stage in the life cycle of human beings. Do you object to
the trillions of sperm that die daily? Being " a stage in the life
cycle of human beings" does not make something valuable.

I am really getting tired of posting this. If you would just read it
you would see how ridiculous your claim about sperm being a stage of
a human is.
When Do Human Beings Begin?
"Scientific" Myths and Scientific Facts
by Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D
Copyright 1999
Dianne N. Irving

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Introduction
The question as to when a human being begins is strictly a scientific
question, and should be answered by human embryologists � not by
philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray
technicians, movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists. The
question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical question.
Current discussions on abortion, human embryo research (including
cloning, stem cell research, and the formation of mixed-species
chimeras), and the use of abortifacients involve specific claims as to
when the life of every human being begins. If the "science" used to
ground these various discussions is incorrect, then any conclusions
will be rendered groundless and invalid. The purpose of this article
is to focus primarily on a sampling of the "scientific" myths, and on
the objective scientific facts that ought to ground these discussions.
At least it will clarify what the actual international consensus of
human embryologists is with regard to this relatively simple
scientific question. In the final section, I will also address some
"scientific" myths that have caused much confusion within the
philosophical discussions on "personhood."
II. When does a human being begin?
Getting a handle on just a few basic human embryological terms
accurately can considerably clarify the drastic difference between the
"scientific" myths that are currently circulating, and the actual
objective scientific facts. This would include such basic terms as:
"gametogenesis," "oogenesis," "spermatogenesis," "fertilization,"
"zygote," "embryo," and "blastocyst." Only brief scientific
descriptions will be given here for these terms. Further, more
complicated, details can be obtained by investigating any
well-established human embryology textbook in the library, such as
some of those referenced below. Please note that the scientific facts
presented here are not simply a matter of my own opinion. They are
direct quotes and references from some of the most highly respected
human embryology textbooks, and represent a consensus of human
embryologists internationally.
A. Basic human embryological facts
To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between
the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization � the change from a
simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of
another human being (i.e., an oocyte � usually referred to as an
"ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new,
genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human
being (an embryonic single-cell human zygote). That is, upon
fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed
into something very different from what they were before; they have
been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of
fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a
new human being is produced.
To understand this, it should be remembered that each kind of living
organism has a specific number and quality of chromosomes that are
characteristic for each member of a species. (The number can vary
only slightly if the organism is to survive.) For example, the
characteristic number of chromosomes for a member of the human species
is 46 (plus or minus, e.g., in human beings with Down's or Turner's
syndromes). Every somatic (or, body) cell in a human being has this
characteristic number of chromosomes. Even the early germ cells
contain 46 chromosomes; it is only their most mature forms � the sex
gametes, or sperms and oocytes � which will later contain only 23
chromosomes.1 Sperms and oocytes are derived from primitive germ
cells in the developing fetus by means of the process known as
"gametogenesis." Because each germ cell normally has 46 chromosomes,
the process of "fertilization" can not take place until the total
number of chromosomes in each germ are cut in half. This is necessary
so that after their fusion at fertilization the characteristic number
of chromosomes in a single individual member of the human species (46)
can be maintained � otherwise we would end up with a monster of some
sort.
To accurately see why a sperm or an oocyte are considered as only
possessing human life, and not as living human beings themselves, one
needs to look at the basic scientific facts involved in the processes
of gametogenesis and of fertilization. It may help to keep in mind
that the products of gametogenesis and fertilization are very
different. The products of gametogenesis are mature sex gametes with
only 23 instead of 46 chromosomes. The product of fertilization is a
living human being with 46 chromosomes. Gametogenesis refers to the
maturation of germ cells resulting in gametes. Fertilization refers
to the initiation of a new human being.
1) Gametogenesis
As the human embryologist Larsen2 states it, gametogenesis is the
process that converts primordial germ cells (primitive sex cells) into
mature sex gametes � in the male (spermatozoa, or sperms), and in the
female (definitive oocytes). The timing of gametogenesis is different
in males and in females. The later stages of spermatogenesis in males
occur at puberty, and continue throughout adult life. The process
involves the production of spermatogonia from the primitive germ
cells, which in turn become primary spermatocytes, and finally
spermatids � or mature spermatozoa (sperms). These mature sperms will
have only half of the number of their original chromosomes � i.e., the
number of chromosomes has been cut from 46 to 23, and therefore they
are ready to take part in fertilization.3
Oogenesis begins in the female during fetal life. The total number of
primary oocytes � about 7 million � is produced in the female fetus'
ovaries by 5 months of gestation in the mother's uterus. By birth,
only about 700,000 - 2 million remain. By puberty, only about 400,000
remain. The process includes several stages of maturation � the
production of oogonia from primitive germ cells, which in turn become
primary oocytes, which become definitive oocytes only at puberty.
This definitive oocyte is what is released each month during the
female's menstrual period, but it still has 46 chromosomes. In fact,
it does not reduce its number of chromosomes until and unless it is
fertilized by the sperm, during which process the definitive oocyte
becomes a secondary oocyte with only 23 chromosomes.4
This halving of the number of chromosomes in the oocytes takes place
by the process known as meiosis. Many people confuse meiosis with a
different process known as mitosis, but there is an important
difference. Mitosis refers to the normal division of a somatic, or
germ cell in order to increase the number of those cells during growth
and development. The resulting cells contain the same number of
chromosomes as the previous cells � in human beings, 46. Meiosis
refers to the halving of the number of chromosomes that are normally
present in a germ cell � the precursors of a sperm or a definitive
oocyte � in order for fertilization to take place. The resulting
cells have only half of the number of chromosomes as the previous
cells � in human beings, 23.
One of the best and most technically accurate explanations for this
critical process of gametogenesis is by Ronan O'Rahilly,5 the human
embryologist who developed the classic Carnegie stages of human
embryological development. He also sits on the international board of
Nomina Embryologica (which determines the correct terminology to be
used in human embryology textbooks internationally):
"Gametogenesis is the production of [gametes], i.e., spermatozoa and
oocytes. These cells are produced in the gonads, i.e., the testes and
ovaries respectively. ... During the differentiation of gametes,
diploid cells (those with a double set of chromosomes, as found in
somatic cells [46 chromosomes]) are termed primary, and haploid cells
(those with a single set of chromosomes [23 chromosomes]) are called
secondary. The reduction of chromosomal number ... from 46 (the
diploid number or 2n) to 23 (the haploid number or n) is accomplished
by a cellular division termed meiosis. ... Spermatogenesis, the
production of spermatozoa, continues from immediately after puberty
until old age. It takes place in the testis, which is also an
endocrine gland, the interstitial cells of which secrete testosterone.
Previous to puberty, spermatogonia in the simiferous tubules of the
testis remain relatively inactive. After puberty, under stimulation
from the interstitial cells, spermatogonia proliferate ... and some
become primary spermatocytes. When these undergo their first
maturation division (meiosis 1), they become secondary spermatocytes.
The second maturation division (meiosis 2) results in spermatids,
which become converted into spermatozoa."6
"Oogenesis is the production and maturation of oocytes, i.e., the
female gametes derived from oogonia. Oogonia (derived from primordial
germ cells) multiply by mitosis and become primary oocytes. The
number of oogonia increases to nearly seven million by the middle of
prenatal life, after which it diminishes to about two million at
birth. From these, several thousand oocytes are derived, several
hundred of which mature and are liberated (ovulated) during a
reproductive period of some thirty years. Prophase of meiosis 1
begins during fetal life but ceases at the diplotene state, which
persists during childhood. ... After puberty, meiosis 1 is resumed
and a secondary oocyte ... is formed, together with polar body 1,
which can be regarded as an oocyte having a reduced share of
cytoplasm. The secondary oocyte is a female gamete in which the first
meiotic division is completed and the second has begun. From oogonium
to secondary oocyte takes from about 12 to 50 years to be completed.
Meiosis 2 is terminated after rupture of the follicle (ovulation) but
only if a spermatozoon penetrates. ... The term 'ovum' implies that
polar body 2 has been given off, which event is usually delayed until
the oocyte has been penetrated by a spermatozoon (i.e., has been
fertilized). Hence a human ovum does not [really] exist. Moreover
the term has been used for such disparate structures as an oocyte and
a three-week embryo, and therefore should be discarded, as a fortiori
should 'egg'."7 (Emphasis added.)
Thus, for fertilization to be accomplished, a mature sperm and a
mature human oocyte are needed. Before fertilization,8 each has only
23 chromosomes. They each possess "human life," since they are parts
of a living human being; but they are not each whole living human
beings themselves. They each have only 23 chromosomes, not 46
chromosomes � the number of chromosomes necessary and characteristic
for a single individual member of the human species. Furthermore, a
sperm can produce only "sperm" proteins and enzymes; an oocyte can
produce only "oocyte" proteins and enzymes; neither alone is or can
produce a human being with 46 chromosomes.
Also, note O'Rahilly's statement that the use of terms such as "ovum"
and "egg" � which would include the term "fertilized egg" � is
scientifically incorrect, has no objective correlate in reality, and
is therefore very misleading � especially in these present
discussions. Thus these terms themselves would qualify as
"scientific" myths. The commonly used term, "fertilized egg," is
especially very misleading, since there is really no longer an egg (or
oocyte) once fertilization has begun. What is being called a
"fertilized egg" is not an egg of any sort; it is a human being.
2) Fertilization
Now that we have looked at the formation of the mature haploid sex
gametes, the next important process to consider is fertilization.
O'Rahilly defines fertilization as:
"... the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes
contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments, and ends with the
intermingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes at metaphase of the
first mitotic division of the zygote. The zygote is characteristic of
the last phase of fertilization and is identified by the first
cleavage spindle. It is a unicellular embryo."9 (Emphasis added.)
The fusion of the sperm (with 23 chromosomes) and the oocyte (with 23
chromosomes) at fertilization results in a live human being, a
single-cell human zygote, with 46 chromosomes � the number of
chromosomes characteristic of an individual member of the human
species. Quoting Moore:
"Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A
zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The
expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is
impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte
becomes a zygote."10 (Emphasis added.)
This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically
human proteins and enzymes11 (not carrot or frog enzymes and
proteins), and genetically directs his/her own growth and development.
(In fact, this genetic growth and development has been proven not to
be directed by the mother.)12 Finally, this new human being � the
single-cell human zygote � is biologically an individual, a living
organism � an individual member of the human species. Quoting Larsen:
"... [W]e begin our description of the developing human with the
formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or
gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic
development of a new individual."13 (Emphasis added.)
In sum, a human sperm and a human oocyte are products of gametogenesis
� each has only 23 chromosomes. They each have only half of the
required number of chromosomes for a human being. They cannot singly
develop further into human beings. They produce only "gamete"
proteins and enzymes. They do not direct their own growth and
development. And they are not individuals, i.e., members of the human
species. They are only parts � each one a part of a human being. On
the other hand, a human being is the immediate product of
fertilization. As such he/she is a single-cell embryonic zygote, an
organism with 46 chromosomes, the number required of a member of the
human species. This human being immediately produces specifically
human proteins and enzymes, directs his/her own further growth and
development as human, and is a new, genetically unique, newly
existing, live human individual.
After fertilization the single-cell human embryo doesn't become
another kind of thing. It simply divides and grows bigger and bigger,
developing through several stages as an embryo over an 8-week period.
Several of these developmental stages of the growing embryo are given
special names, e.g., a morula (about 4 days), a blastocyst (5-7 days),
a bilaminar (two layer) embryo (during the second week), and a
trilaminar (3-layer) embryo (during the third week).14
B. "Scientific" myths and scientific facts
Given these basic facts of human embryology, it is easier to recognize
the many scientifically inaccurate claims that have been advanced in
the discussions about abortion, human embryo research, cloning, stem
cell research, the formation of chimeras, and the use of
abortifacients � and why these discussions obfuscate the objective
scientific facts. The following is just a sampling of these current
"scientific" myths.
Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a
human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms
and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to
agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no
different from abortions � and that is ridiculous!"
Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section, there is a
radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being
that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that
is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human
being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not
constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not
when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every
human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a
sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human
beings � they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a
single oocyte were implanted into a woman's uterus, they would not
grow; they would simply disintegrate.
Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a 'blob,' a 'bunch of
cells', a 'piece of the mother's tissues'."
Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at
fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a
"blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a
mixture of both the mother's and the father's chromosomes, and
therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother's tissues". Quoting
Carlson:
"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the
zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment,
which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis
added.)
Myth 3: "The immediate product of fertilization is just a 'potential'
or a 'possible' human being � not a real existing human being."
Fact 3: As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no
question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a
newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is
not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. It's an actual human
being � with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities.
Myth 4: "A single-cell human zygote, or embryo, or fetus are not human
beings, because they do not look like human beings."
Fact 4: As all human embryologists know, a single-cell human zygote,
or a more developed human embryo, or human fetus is a human being �
and that that's the way they are supposed to look at those particular
periods of development.
Myth 5: "The immediate product of fertilization is just an 'it' � it
is neither a girl nor a boy."
Fact 5: The immediate product of fertilization is genetically already
a girl or a boy � determined by the kind of sperm that fertilizes the
oocyte. Quoting Carlson again:
"...[T]he sex of the future embryo is determined by the chromosomal
complement of the spermatozoon. (If the sperm contains 22 autosomes
and 2 X chromosomes, the embryo will be a genetic female, and if it
contains 22 autosomes and an X and a Y chromosome, the embryo will be
a genetic male.)"16
Myth 6: "The embryo and the embryonic period begin at implantation."
(Alternative myths claim 14 days, or 3 weeks.)
Fact 6: These are a few of the most common myths perpetuated sometimes
even within quasi-scientific articles � especially within the
bioethics literature. As demonstrated above, the human embryo, who is
a human being, begins at fertilization � not at implantation (about
5-7 days), 14-days, or 3 weeks. Thus the embryonic period also begins
at fertilization, and ends by the end of the eighth week, when the
fetal period begins. Quoting O'Rahilly:
"Prenatal life is conveniently divided into two phases: the embryonic
and the fetal. The embryonic period proper during which the vast
majority of the named structures of the body appear, occupies the
first 8 postovulatory weeks. ... [T]he fetal period extends from 8
weeks to birth ..."17 (Emphasis added.)
Myth 7: "The product of fertilization, up to 14-days, is not an
embryo; it is just a 'pre-embryo' � and therefore it can be used in
experimental research, aborted, or donated."
Fact 7: This "scientific" myth is perhaps the most common error that
pervades the current literature. The term "pre-embryo" has quite a
long and interesting history. (See Irving and Kischer, The Human
Development Hoax: Time To Tell The Truth!, for extensive details and
references.) But it roughly goes back to at least 1979 in the
bioethics writings of Jesuit theologian Richard McCormick in his work
with the Ethics Advisory Board to the United States Department of
Health, Education and Welfare,18 and those of frog developmental
biologist Dr. Clifford Grobstein in a 1979 article in Scientific
American,19 and most notably in his classic book, Science and the
Unborn: Choosing Human Futures (1988).20 Both McCormick and Grobstein
subsequently continued propagating this scientific myth as members of
the Ethics Committee of the American Fertility Society, and in
numerous influential bioethics articles, leading to its common use in
bioethics, theological, and public policy literature to this day.
The term "pre-embryo" was also used as the rationale for permitting
human embryo research in the British Warnock Committee Report
(1984),21 and then picked up by literally hundreds of writers
internationally, including, e.g., Australian writers Michael Lockwood,
Michael Tooley, Alan Trounson � and especially by Peter Singer (a
philosopher), Pascal Kasimba (a lawyer), Helga Kuhse (an ethicist),
Stephen Buckle (a philosopher) and Karen Dawson (a geneticist, not a
human embryologist). Note that none of these is even a scientist,
with the exception of Karen Dawson, who is just a geneticist.
Oddly, the influential book by Singer, Kuhse, Buckle, and Dawson,
Embryo Experimentation,22 (which uses the term "pre-embryo," and which
contains no scientific references for its "human embryology" chart or
its list of "scientific" terms), along with the work of theologian
McCormick and frog developmental biologist Grobstein, was used in the
United States as the scientific basis for the 1994 National Institutes
of Heath (NIH) Human Embryo Research Report.23 That Report concluded
that the "preimplantation embryo" (they, too, originally used the term
"pre-embryo") had only a "reduced moral status." (Both the Warnock
Report and the NIH Report admitted that the 14-day limit for human
embryo research was arbitrary, and could and must be changed if
necessary.) It is particularly in the writings of these and other
bioethicists that so much incorrect science is claimed in order to
"scientifically" ground the "pre-embryo" myth and therefore
"scientifically" justify many of the issues noted at the beginning of
this article. This would include abortion, as well as the use of
donated or "made-for-research" early human embryos in destructive
experimental human embryo research (such as infertility research,
cloning, stem cell research, the formation of chimeras, etc.).
To begin with, it has been demonstrated above that the immediate
product of fertilization is a human being with 46 chromosomes, a human
embryo, an individual member of the human species, and that this is
the beginning of the embryonic period. However, McCormick and
Grobstein24 claim that even though the product of fertilization is
genetically human, it is not a "developmental individual" yet � and in
turn, this "scientific fact" grounds their moral claim about this
"pre-embryo." Quoting McCormick:
"I contend in this paper that the moral status � and specifically the
controversial issue of personhood � is related to the attainment of
developmental individuality (being the source of one individual) ...
It should be noted that at the zygote stage the genetic individual is
not yet developmentally single � a source of only one individual. As
we will see, that does not occur until a single body axis has begun to
form near the end of the second week post fertilization when
implantation is underway."25 (Emphasis added.)
Sounds very scientific. However, McCormick's embryology is already
self-contradictory. Implantation takes place at 5-7 days. The
"single body axis" to which he refers is the formation of the
primitive streak, which takes place at 14 days. McCormick often
confuses these different periods in his writings. But McCormick
continues:
"This multicellular entity, called a blastocyst, has an outer cellular
wall, a central fluid-filled cavity and a small gathering of cells at
one end known as the inner cell mass. Developmental studies show that
the cells of the outer wall become the trophoblast (feeding layer) and
are precursors to the later placenta. Ultimately, all these cells are
discarded at birth."26 (Emphasis added.)
The clear implication is that there is absolutely no relationship or
interaction between these two cell layers, and so the "entity" is not
a "developmental individual" yet. However, quoting Larsen:
"These centrally placed blastomeres are now called the inner cell
mass, while the blastomeres at the periphery constitute the outer cell
mass. Some exchange occurs between these groups. ... The cells of
this germ disc (the inner cell layer) develop into the embryo proper
and also contribute to some of the extraembryonic membranes."27
(Emphasis added.)
Similarly, it is not factually correct to state that all of the cells
from the outer trophoblast layer are discarded after birth. Quoting
Moore:
"The chorion, the amnion, the yolk sac, and the allantois constitute
the fetal membranes. They develop from the zygote but do not
participate in the formation of the embryo or fetus � except for parts
of the yolk sac and allantois. Part of the yolk sac is incorporated
into the embryo as the primordium of the gut. The allantois forms a
fibrous cord that is known as the urachus in the fetus and the median
umbilical ligament in the adult. It extends from the apex of the
urinary bladder to the umbilicus."28 (Emphasis added.)
Since scientists, in trying to "reach" young students in a more
familiar language, sometimes use popularized (but scientifically
inaccurate and misleading) terms themselves, the ever-vigilant
O'Rahilly expresses concern in his classic text about the use of the
term "fetal membranes":
"The developmental adnexa, commonly but inaccurately referred to as
the 'fetal membranes,' include the trophoblast, amnion, chorion,
umbilical vesicle (yolk sac), allantoic diverticulum, placenta and
umbilical cord. They are genetically a part of the individual and are
composed of the same germ layers."29 (Emphasis added.)
Consequently, it is also scientifically incorrect to claim that only
the inner cell layer constitutes the "embryo proper." The entire
blastocyst � including both the inner and the outer cell layers � is
the human embryo, the human being, the human individual.
Finally, McCormick claims that this "pre-embryo" has not yet decided
how many individuals it will become, since the cells are totipotent
and twinning can still take place. Therefore, they argue, there is no
"individual" present until 14-days and the formation of the primitive
streak, after which twinning cannot take place.30
However, twinning is possible after 14 days, e.g., with fetus-in-fetu
and Siamese twins. Quoting from O'Rahilly again:
"Partial duplication at an early stage and attempted duplication from
2 weeks onward (when bilateral symmetry has become manifest) would
result in conjoined twins (e.g., 'Siamese twins')."31 (Emphasis
added.)
And even Karen Dawson acknowledges this as scientific fact in her
article in Embryo Experimentation:
"After the time of primitive streak formation, other events are
possible which indicate that the notion of 'irreversible
individuality' may need some review if it is to be considered as an
important criterion in human life coming to be the individual human
being it is ever thereafter to be. There are two conditions which
raise questions about the adequacy of this notion: conjoined twins,
sometimes known as Siamese twins, and fetus-in-fetu. ... Conjoined
twins arise from the twinning process occurring after the primitive
streak has begun to form, that is, beyond 14 days after fertilization,
or, in terms of the argument from segmentation, beyond the time at
which irreversible individuality is said to exist. ... This
situation weakens the possibility of seeing individuality as something
irreversibly resolved by about 14 days after fertilization. This in
turn raises questions about the adequacy of using the landmark of
segmentation in development as the determinant of moral status."32
(Emphasis added.)
It is unfortunate that the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel33 did not
read this particular portion of the Singer et al. book before making
their recommendations about the moral status of the early human
embryo.
The scientific fact is that there is no such thing as a "pre-embryo"
in the real world. The term is a complete myth. It was fabricated
out of thin air in order to justify a number of things that ordinarily
would not be justifiable. Quoting O'Rahilly, who sits on the
international board of Nomina Embryologica, again:
"The ill-defined and inaccurate term 'pre-embryo,' which includes the
embryonic disk, is said either to end with the appearance of the
primitive streak or to include neurulation. The term is not used in
this book.34 (Emphasis added.)
Unfortunately, the convenient but mythological term "pre-embryo" will
be used to "scientifically" justify several of the other "scientific"
myths to follow, which in turn will be used to justify public policy
on abortion and human embryo research world-wide.
Myth 8: "Pregnancy begins with the implantation of the blastocyst
(i.e., about 5-7 days)."
Fact 8: This definition of "pregnancy" was initiated to accommodate
the introduction of the process of in vitro fertilization, where
fertilization takes place artificially outside the mother in a petri
dish, and then the embryo is artificially introduced into the woman's
uterus so that implantation of the embryo can take place. Obviously,
if the embryo is not within the woman's body, she is not "pregnant" in
the literal, traditional sense of the term. However, this artificial
situation cannot validly be substituted back to redefine "normal
pregnancy," in which fertilization does take place within the woman's
body in her fallopian tube, and subsequently the embryo itself moves
along the tube to implant itself into her uterus. In normal
situations, pregnancy begins at fertilization, not at implantation.
Quoting Carlson:
"Human pregnancy begins with the fusion of an egg and a sperm, but a
great deal of preparation precedes this event. First both male and
female sex cells must pass through a long series of changes
(gametogenesis) that converts them genetically and phenotypically into
mature gametes, which are capable of participating in the process of
fertilization. Next, the gametes must be released from the gonads and
make their way to the upper part of the uterine tube, where
fertilization normally takes place. Finally, the fertilized egg, now
properly called an embryo, must make its way into the uterus, where it
sinks into the uterine lining (implantation) to be nourished by the
mother."35 (Emphasis added.)
Myth 9: "The 'morning-after pill,' RU486, and the IUD are not
abortifacient; they are only methods of contraception."
Fact 9: The "morning-after pill," RU486, and the IUD can be
abortifacient, if fertilization has taken place. Then they would act
to prevent the implantation of an already existing human embryo � the
blastocyst � which is an existing human being. If the developing
human blastocyst is prevented from implanting into the uterus, then
obviously the embryo dies. In effect, these chemical and mechanical
methods of contraception have become methods of abortion as well.
Quoting Moore:
"The administration of relatively large doses of estrogens
('morning-after pill') for several days, beginning shortly after
unprotected sexual intercourse, usually does not prevent fertilization
but often prevents implantation of the blastocyst.
Diethylstilbestrol, given daily in high dosage for 5-6 days, may also
accelerate passage of the dividing zygote along the uterine tube ...
Normally, the endometrium progresses to the secretory phase of the
menstrual cycle as the zygote forms, undergoes cleavage, and enters
the uterus. The large amount of estrogen disturbs the normal balance
between estrogen and progesterone that is necessary for preparation of
the endometrium for implantation of the blastocyst. Postconception
administration of hormones to prevent implantation of the blastocyst
is sometimes used in cases of sexual assault or leakage of a condom,
but this treatment is contraindicated for routine contraceptive use.
The 'abortion pill' RU486 also destroys the conceptus by interrupting
implantation because of interference with the hormonal environment of
the implanting embryo. ... An intrauterine device (IUD) inserted
into the uterus through the vagina and cervix usually interferes with
implantation by causing a local inflammatory reaction. Some IUDs
contain progesterone that is slowly released and interferes with the
development of the endometrium so that implantation does not usually
occur."36 (Emphasis added.)
And since the whole human blastocyst is the embryonic human being �
not just the inner cell layer � the use of chemical abortifacients
that act "only" on the outer trophoblast layer of the blastocyst,
e.g., methotrexate,37 would be abortifacient as well.
Myth 10: "Human embryo research, human cloning, stem cell research,
and the formation of chimeras are acceptable kinds of research because
until implantation or 14 days there is only a 'pre-embryo', a
'potential' human embryo or human being present. A real human embryo
and a human being (child) do not actually begin unless and until the
'pre-embryo' is implanted into the mother's uterus."
Fact 10: These claims are currently being made by bioethicists,
research scientists, pharmaceutical companies, and other biotech
research companies � even by some members of Congress. However, they
too are "scientific" myths.
Scientifically it is perfectly clear that there is no such thing as a
"pre-embryo," as demonstrated in Fact 7. As demonstrated in the
background material, the immediate product of fertilization is a human
being, a human embryo, a human child � the zygote. This zygote is a
newly existing, genetically unique, genetically male or female,
individual human being � it is not a "potential" or a "possible" human
being. And this developing human being is a human being, a human
embryo, a human child whether or not it is implanted artificially into
the womb of the mother.
Fertilization and cloning are different processes, but the immediate
products of these processes are the same. The immediate product of
human cloning would also be a human being � just as in human
fertilization. It is not a "pre-embryo" or a "potential" human embryo
or human being. Stem cell research obtains its "stem cells" by
essentially exploding or otherwise destroying and killing a newly
existing human blastocyst who is, scientifically, an existing human
being. The formation of chimeras, i.e., the fertilization of a gamete
of one species (e.g., a human oocyte) with the gamete of another
species (e.g., a monkey sperm) also results in an embryo that is
"half-human." All of these types of research have been banned by most
countries in the world. And all of these types of research are
essentially human embryo research � for which the use of federal funds
has been banned.
Myth 11: "Certain early stages of the developing human embryo and
fetus, e.g., during the formation of ancestral fish gills or tails,
demonstrates that it is not yet a human being, but is only in the
process of becoming one. It is simply 'recapitulating' the historical
evolution of all of the species."
Fact 11: This "scientific" myth is yet another version of the
"potential," "possible," "pre-embryo" myths. It is an attempt to deny
the early human embryo its real identity as a human being and its real
existence. But quoting once again from O'Rahilly:
"The theory that successive stages of individual development
(ontogeny) correspond with ('recapitulate') successive adult ancestors
in the line of evolutionary descent (phylogeny) became popular in the
19th century as the so-called biogenetic law. This theory of
recapitulation, however, has had a 'regrettable influence in the
progress of embryology' (citing de Beer). ... Furthermore, during
its development an animal departs more and more from the form of other
animals. Indeed, the early stages in the development of an animal are
not like the adult stages of other forms, but resemble only the early
stages of those animals."38
Hence, the developing human embryo or fetus is not a "fish" or a
"frog," but is categorically a human being � as has been already
demonstrated.
III. When does a human person begin?
The question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical
question � not a scientific question. I will not go into great detail
here,39 but "personhood" begins when the human being begins � at
fertilization. But since many of the current popular "personhood"
claims in bioethics are also based on mythological science, it would
be useful to just look very briefly at these philosophical (or
sometimes, theological) arguments simply for scientific accuracy as
well.
Philosophically, virtually any claim for so-called "delayed
personhood" � that is, "personhood" does not start until some point
after fertilization � involves the theoretical disaster of accepting
that the idea or concept of a mind/body split has any correlate or
reflects the real world. Historically this problem was simply the
consequence of wrong-headed thinking about reality, and was/is totally
indefensible. It was abandoned with great embarrassment after Plato's
time (even by Plato himself in his Parmenides!), but unfortunately
resurfaces from time to time, e.g., as with Descartes in his
Meditations, and now again with contemporary bioethics.40 And as in
the question of when a human being begins, if the science used to
ground these philosophical "personhood" arguments is incorrect, the
conclusions of these arguments (which are based on that incorrect
science) are also incorrect and invalid.
Myth 12: "Maybe a human being begins at fertilization, but a human
person does not begin until after 14-days, when twinning cannot take
place."
Fact 12: The particular argument in Myth 12 is also made by McCormick
and Grobstein (and their numerous followers). It is based on their
biological claim that the "pre-embryo" is not a developmental
individual, and therefore not a person, until after 14 days when
twinning can no longer take place. However, it has already been
scientifically demonstrated here that there is no such thing as a
"pre-embryo," and that in fact the embryo begins as a "developmental
individual" at fertilization. Furthermore, twinning can take place
after 14 days. Thus simply on the level of science, the philosophical
claim of "personhood" advanced by these bioethicists is invalid and
indefensible.
Myth 13: "A human person begins with 'brain birth,' the formation of
the primitive nerve net, or the formation of the cortex � all
physiological structures necessary to support thinking and feeling."
Fact 13: Such claims are all pure mental speculation, the product of
imposing philosophical (or theological) concepts on the scientific
data, and have no scientific evidence to back them up. As the
well-known neurological researcher D. Gareth Jones has succinctly put
it, the parallelism between "brain death" and "brain birth" is
scientifically invalid. "Brain death" is the gradual or rapid
cessation of the functions of a brain. "Brain birth" is the very
gradual acquisition of the functions of a developing neural system.
This developing neural system is not a brain. He questions, in fact,
the entire assumption and asks what neurological reasons there might
be for concluding that an incapacity for consciousness becomes a
capacity for consciousness once this point is passed. Jones continues
that the alleged symmetry is not as strong as is sometimes assumed,
and that it has yet to be provided with a firm biological base.41
Myth 14: "A 'person' is defined in terms of the active exercising of
'rational attributes' (e.g., thinking, willing, choosing,
self-consciousness, relating to the world around one, etc.), and/or
the active exercising of 'sentience' (e.g., the feeling of pain and
pleasure)."
Fact 14: Again, these are philosophical terms or concepts, which have
been illegitimately imposed on the scientific data. The scientific
fact is that the brain, which is supposed to be the physiological
support for both "rational attributes" and "sentience," is not
actually completely developed until young adulthood. Quoting Moore:
"Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal
(before birth) and postnatal (after birth) periods, birth is merely a
dramatic event during development resulting in a change in
environment. Development does not stop at birth. Important changes,
in addition to growth, occur after birth (e.g., development of teeth
and female breasts). The brain triples in weight between birth and 16
years; most developmental changes are completed by the age of 25."42
(Emphasis added.)
One should also consider simply the logical � and very real �
consequences if a "person" is defined only in terms of the actual
exercising of "rational attributes" or of "sentience." What would
this mean for the following list of adult human beings with diminished
"rational attributes": e.g., the mentally ill, the mentally retarded,
the depressed elderly, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's patients, drug
addicts, alcoholics � and for those with diminished "sentience," e.g.,
the comatose, patients in a "vegetative state," paraplegics, and other
paralyzed and disabled patients, diabetics or other patients with
nerve or brain damage, etc.? Would they then be considered as only
human beings but not also as human persons? Would that mean that they
would not have the same ethical and legal rights and protections as
those adult human beings who are considered as persons? Is there
really such a "split" between a human being and a human person?
In fact, this is the position of bioethics writers such as the
Australian animal rights philosopher Peter Singer,43 the recently
appointed Director of the Center for Human Values at Princeton
University. Singer argues that the higher primates, e.g., dogs, pigs,
apes, monkeys, are persons � but that some human beings, e.g., even
normal human infants, and disabled human adults, are not persons.
Fellow bioethicist Norman Fost actually considers "cognitively
impaired" adult human beings as "brain dead." Philosopher/bioethicist
R.G. Frey has also published that many of the adult human beings on
the above list are not "persons," and suggests that they be
substituted for the higher primates who are "persons" in purely
destructive experimental research.44 The list goes on.
IV. Conclusions
Ideas do have concrete consequences � not only in one's personal life,
but also in the formulation of public policies. And once a definition
is accepted in one public policy, the logical extensions of it can
then be applied, invalidly, in many other policies, even if they are
not dealing with the same exact issue � as happens frequently in
bioethics. Thus, the definitions of "human being" and of "person"
that have been concretized in the abortion debates have been
transferred to several other areas, e.g., human embryo research,
cloning, stem cell research, the formation of chimeras, the use of
abortifacients � even to the issues of brain death, brain birth, organ
transplantation, the removal of food and hydration, and research with
the mentally ill or the disabled. But neither private choices nor
public policies should ever incorporate unsound or inaccurate science.
What I have tried to indicate is that in these current discussions,
individual choices and public policies have been based on "scientific"
myth, rather than on objective scientific facts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes
B. Lewin, Genes III (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1983), pp. 9-13;
A. Emery, Elements of Medical Genetics (New York: Churchill
Livingstone, 1983), pp. 19, 93.
William J. Larsen, Human Embryology (New York: Churchill Livingstone,
1997), pp. 4, 8, 11.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola M�ller, Human Embryology & Teratology (New
York: Wiley-Liss, 1994). See also, Bruce M. Carlson, Human Embryology
and Developmental Biology (St. Louis, MO: Mosby, 1994), and Keith L.
Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human (Philadelphia: W.B.
Saunders Company, 1998).
O'Rahilly and M�ller 1994, pp. 13-14.
Ibid., p. 16. See also, Larsen, op. cit., pp. 3-11; Moore and
Persaud, op. cit., pp. 18-34; Carlson, op. cit., pp. 3-21.
Note: The number of chromosomes in the definitive oocyte are not
halved unless and until it is penetrated by a sperm, which really does
not take place before fertilization but is in fact concurrent with and
the beginning of the process of fertilization. However, for
simplicity's sake, many writers (myself among them) will sometimes
assume the reader clearly understands this timing, and simply say,
"before fertilization the sperm and the oocyte each contain 23
chromosomes."
O'Rahilly and M�ller, p. 19.
Moore and Persaud, p. 2.
E.g., as determined in extensive numbers of transgenic mice
experiments as in Kollias et al., "The human beta-globulin gene
contains a downstream developmental specific enhancer," Nucleic Acids
Research 15(14) (July, 1987), 5739-47; also similar work by, e.g.,
R.K. Humphries, A. Schnieke.
Holtzer et al., "Induction-dependent and lineage-dependent models for
cell-diversification are mutually exclusive," Progress in Clinical
Biological Research 175:3-11 (1985); also similar work by, e.g., F.
Mavilio, C. Hart.
Larsen, p. 1; also O'Rahilly and M�ller, p. 20.
Larsen, p. 19, 33, 49.
Carlson, p. 31.
Carlson, p. 31.
O'Rahilly and M�ller, p. 55; Carlson, p. 407.
Ethics Advisory Board, 1979, Report and Conclusions: HEW Support of
Research Involving Human In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer,
Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, p. 101.
Clifford Grobstein, "External human fertilization," Scientific
American 240:57-67.
Clifford Grobstein, Science and the Unborn: Choosing Human Futures
(New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1988).
Dame Mary Warnock, Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human
Fertilization and Embryology (London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office,
1984), pp. 27, 63. See also the writings of, e.g., H. Tristram
Engelhardt, John Robertson (in legal writings), R.M. Hare, Bedate and
Cefalo, William Wallace.
Peter Singer, Helga Kuhse, Stephen Buckle, Karen Dawson, and Pascal
Kasimba, Embryo Experimentation (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1990).
National Institutes of Health: Report of the Human Embryo Research
Panel, September 27, 1994 (National Institutes of Health, Division of
Science Policy Analysis and Development, Bethesda, MD).
Clifford Grobstein, "The early development of human embryos," Journal
of Medicine and Philosophy 1985:10:213-236; and Richard McCormick,
"Who or what is the preembryo?" Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal
1991:1:1-15.
Richard McCormick, ibid., p. 3.
McCormick, ibid., p. 3.
Larsen, p. 19, 33.
Moore and Persaud, p. 131.
O'Rahilly and M�ller, p. 51.
McCormick, op. cit., p. 4.
O'Rahilly and M�ller, p. 32.
Karen Dawson, "Segmentation and moral status," in Peter Singer et al.,
Embryo Experimentation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990),
p. 58. See also Moore and Persaud, p. 133.
For extensive comments on the make-up of the NIH Human Embryo Research
Panel and on its Report, see several of my articles in Ward C. Kischer
and Dianne N. Irving, The Human Development Hoax: Time to Tell The
Truth!, (1st ed., Clinton Township, MI: Gold Leaf Press, 1995); (2nd
ed., published by authors; distributed by American Life League, 1997).
O'Rahilly and M�ller, p. 55.
Carlson, p. 3.
Moore and Persaud, p. 58.
But see Albert Moraczewski, "Managing tubal pregnancies: Part I" (June
1996) and "Part II" (August 1996), in Ethics and Medics (Braintree,
MA: Pope John Center).
O'Rahilly and M�ller, p. 8-9.
The use of massive historically incorrect and theoretically
indefensible philosophy in the "delayed personhood" arguments has been
addressed in my doctoral dissertation, A Philosophical and Scientific
Analysis of the Nature of the Early Human Embryo (Washington, D.C.:
Georgetown University, Department of Philosophy, 1991); see also
several of my previously published articles in my book, co-authored by
C. Ward Kischer, The Human Development Hoax: Time To Tell The Truth,
supra., which gives extensive references pro and con these bioethics
arguments.
For an excellent and easy to read analysis of the problem of a
mind/body split as one of the fundamental theoretical problems in
contemporary bioethics theory, see Gilbert C. Meilaender, Body, Soul,
and Bioethics (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995);
see also many of the excellent articles about this problem in
bioethics theory in Raanan Gillon (ed.), Principles of Health Care
Ethics (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1994); also Edwin R. DuBose,
Ronald P. Hamel and Laurence J. O'Connell (eds.), A Matter of
Principles? Ferment in U.S. Bioethics (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press
International, 1994) � especially the "Preface" by Albert Jonsen.
Even Daniel Callahan has admitted that the bioethics principles don't
work, in "Bioethics: Private choice and common good," in The Hastings
Center Report (May/June 1994), pp. 28-31.
D. Gareth Jones, "Brain birth and personal identity," Journal of
Medical Ethics 15:4, 1989, p. 178.
Moore and Persaud, p. 2; see also Jones, p. 177.
Peter Singer, "Taking life: Abortion," in Practical Ethics (London:
Cambridge University Press, 1981), p. 118; Helga Kuhse and Peter
Singer, "For sometimes letting � and helping � die," Law, Medicine and
Health Care, 1986, 3:4:149-153; Kuhse and Singer, Should the Baby
Live? The Problem of Handicapped Infants (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1985), p. 138; Singer and Kuhse, "The ethics of embryo
research," Law, Medicine and Health Care, 1987, 14:13-14; Michael
Tooley, "Abortion and infanticide," in Marshall Cohen (ed.) et al.,
The Rights and Wrongs of Abortions, (New Jersey: Princeton University
Press, 1974), pp. 59, 64; H. Tristram Engelhardt, The Foundations of
Bioethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), p. 111.
R.G. Frey, "The ethics of the search for benefits: Animal
experimentation in medicine," in Raanan Gillon (ed.), Principles of
Health Care Ethics (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1994), pp. 1067-1075.

.

User: "Paul Anderson"
Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life?	12 May 2004 05:27:22 PM

On 12 May 2004 16:12:13 -0500, LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com>
wrote:
....

I addressed this in an earlier post. Cancer is not a stage in the life
cycle of human beings.

Sperm is a stage in the life cycle of human beings. Do you object to
the trillions of sperm that die daily? Being " a stage in the life
cycle of human beings" does not make something valuable.

I am really getting tired of posting this. If you would just read it
you would see how ridiculous your claim about sperm being a stage of
a human is.

*SIGH* I did not say that a seprm was a stage of a human. Can you
attempt to address what I write rather than what you would wish I
would write?
Not to mention (clipping most of the 900+ lines of *****)
....

That is, upon
fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed
into something very different from what they were before; they have
been changed into a single, whole human being.

....
By this claim, twins are a single, whole human being.
By this claim, triplets are a single, whole human being.
By this claim, a chimera is two separate human beings.
This claim is obviously false.
.

User: "Paul Anderson"
Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life?	12 May 2004 05:19:02 PM

On 12 May 2004 16:12:13 -0500, LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Wed, 12 May 2004 13:05:18 GMT,

(Paul Anderson)
wrote:

On 12 May 2004 06:38:07 -0500, LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Tue, 11 May 2004 20:16:57 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:

...

Value is irrelevant.

...

Value is not irrelevant.

...

Value is subjective and thus useless in such a discussion. No two
people would ever agree on value in such a situation.

Let me get this straight:

(patch my post back together)

You see the fetus as having *more value* than the pregnant woman.
Since we are talking about early abortion as well, you see a embryo of
a few weeks gestation as more valuable than a pregnant woman.
Contrawise, you see the woman as less valuable than her embryo.
Such an embryo, without the woman, is routinely tossed into the trash.
Thus you view pregnant women as less valuable than common household
garbage.

No, I have never suggested that you should kill the mother to save the
baby,.

Well, yes. However that was not what I was addressing. You said,
and I quote "I see a fetus as having more value than those that prefer
the convenience of using abortion as a form of birth control." Do you
stand by this statement or do you wish to retract it?
.

User: "LP"
Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life?	13 May 2004 05:49:22 AM

On Wed, 12 May 2004 22:19:02 GMT,

(Paul Anderson)
wrote:

On 12 May 2004 16:12:13 -0500, LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Wed, 12 May 2004 13:05:18 GMT,

(Paul Anderson)
wrote:

On 12 May 2004 06:38:07 -0500, LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Tue, 11 May 2004 20:16:57 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:

...

Value is irrelevant.

...

Value is not irrelevant.

...

Value is subjective and thus useless in such a discussion. No two
people would ever agree on value in such a situation.

Let me get this straight:

(patch my post back together)

No, I have never suggested that you should kill the mother to save the
baby,.

I stand by the statement. You read it incorrectly.
I see the fetus as having more value than those who prefer the
convenience of using abortion as a form of birth control see it
in other words:
Those who see abortion as a convenient form of birth control see the
fetus as having less value than I do.
.

User: "junegill"
Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life?	13 May 2004 06:38:33 AM

"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:s3k6a09ldig00ndonm69q0b6h4bk4so1qk@4ax.com...
[snip]

I see the fetus as having more value than those who prefer the
convenience of using abortion as a form of birth control see it

in other words:
Those who see abortion as a convenient form of birth control see the
fetus as having less value than I do.

Just what value does a zygote/embryo/foetus have to you? I find it hard to
imagine that it could have any value to anyone except the pregnant woman and
maybe her husband/partner and perhaps close family. Are you aware that the
majority of fertilised eggs/embryos are spontaneously aborted (some sources
say up to 75%)? You do not seem to mourn for them - why is that? Are they
only of value if a woman's decision has been involved?
Also, what makes you think that abortion is a convenient form of birth
control? I've never had an abortion, but I can readily imagine that it is a
distasteful and painful procedure, and anything but convenient.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.

User: "LP"
Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life?	13 May 2004 02:29:11 PM

On Thu, 13 May 2004 11:38:33 +0000 (UTC), "junegill"
<junegill@btinternet.com> wrote:

"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:s3k6a09ldig00ndonm69q0b6h4bk4so1qk@4ax.com...

[snip]

I will explain it this way,,,,
If you heard that a foreign country was painlessly gassing five year
old children to death in an effort to relieve the family of the burden
and to reduce the population, I am assuming that you would find such a
practice offensive. I would like to point out that I do not view
destroying an unborn baby as bad as destroying a baby after it is
born, but the value i speak of is of the same nature. The value I am
referring to, is the value that you place on a five year old children
that would move you to action if you heard that they were being
destroyed because of the negligence and poor planning of the parents.
In many cases my disagreement with those who support easily obtained
and unrestricted abortions is a matter of degree. It has been my
experience that many who support abortion are at least slightly
uncomfortable with it, but not enough to want it restricted.
I, however see the practice of killing humans in their fetal stage as
a dreadful way to handle the results of the negligence use of birth
control.
There are some posters in this thread who are arguing that no
concern should be given to the fact that it is an unformed human in
the its fetal stage that is being destroyed during an abortion.
They are doing this by claiming that a fetus is not even a living
organism and comparing it to a cancerous growth. It is these type of
opinions that motivate me to actively oppose the pro-abortion stance.
On your question on spontaneous abortion.
There have been periods in history where in some regions, up to half
of the child population died as the result of plagues, the flue, or
some other disease.
I would hope that this would not have much effect on the perceived
value of those children that survived. The same applies to humans in
their fetal stage.

Also, what makes you think that abortion is a convenient form of birth
control? I've never had an abortion, but I can readily imagine that it is a
distasteful and painful procedure, and anything but convenient.

Yet 46 million abortions are performed worldwide each year.
The inconvenience you speak of does not seem like much of a deterrent,
at least for some. (Though I suspect that if it were the men that had
to go through the procedure, the deterrent effect would be greater.)
.

User: "MrD"
Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life?	15 May 2004 10:53:17 PM

"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:h7f7a05hdvfct9d27n8cbo5k7i74a784b9@4ax.com...
<snip>

There are some posters in this thread who are arguing that no
concern should be given to the fact that it is an unformed human in
the its fetal stage that is being destroyed during an abortion.
They are doing this by claiming that a fetus is not even a living
organism and comparing it to a cancerous growth. It is these type of
opinions that motivate me to actively oppose the pro-abortion stance.

Pro-abortion stance? What pro-abortion stance are you talking about?
I've never met anyone who is pro-abortion, yet I am constantly being told by
abortion opponents that there is a pro-abortion stance or advocate. What is
this stance, who are its advocates?
.

User: "junegill"
Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life?	15 May 2004 03:27:33 AM

"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:h7f7a05hdvfct9d27n8cbo5k7i74a784b9@4ax.com...

On Thu, 13 May 2004 11:38:33 +0000 (UTC), "junegill"
<junegill@btinternet.com> wrote:

"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:s3k6a09ldig00ndonm69q0b6h4bk4so1qk@4ax.com...

[snip]

Just what value does a zygote/embryo/foetus have to you? I find it hard

imagine that it could have any value to anyone except the pregnant woman

and

maybe her husband/partner and perhaps close family. Are you aware that

the

majority of fertilised eggs/embryos are spontaneously aborted (some

sources

say up to 75%)? You do not seem to mourn for them - why is that? Are

they

only of value if a woman's decision has been involved?

Worse than offensive. I'd be outraged, just as I am about the shooting on
sight of street children in Rio de Janeiro by military police.
I would like to point out that I do not view

destroying an unborn baby as bad as destroying a baby after it is
born,

Why is that?
but the value i speak of is of the same nature. The value I am

referring to, is the value that you place on a five year old children
that would move you to action if you heard that they were being
destroyed because of the negligence and poor planning of the parents.

OK, I see where you're coming from, but have you considered why people would
be outraged at hearing of the deaths of five-year-olds? As far as I am
concerned, and probably a lot of other people, it's due to empathy. These
children are capable of feeling pain and fear, of thinking and wanting to
live. The same can be said of newborn babies about the pain and maybe the
fear, and who knows what they think? This cannot be said of a foetus of
less than 24 weeks' gestation, because the neurons don't connect to the
brain until about that stage, so they feel nothing, know nothing and think
nothing.

In many cases my disagreement with those who support easily obtained
and unrestricted abortions is a matter of degree. It has been my
experience that many who support abortion are at least slightly
uncomfortable with it, but not enough to want it restricted.
I, however see the practice of killing humans in their fetal stage as
a dreadful way to handle the results of the negligence use of birth
control.

Have you never heard of contraception failure? Condoms, for instance, can
break - my two surviving children are a testament to this.

Disliking someone's opinions seems a strange reason to adopt a stance,
unless you're here just to have a good argument, which is fair enough.

On your question on spontaneous abortion.

There have been periods in history where in some regions, up to half
of the child population died as the result of plagues, the flue, or
some other disease.
I would hope that this would not have much effect on the perceived
value of those children that survived. The same applies to humans in
their fetal stage.

I think you ought to re-read your history: it wasn't just in _some_ regions
that children died, but all regions and it wasn't up to half of the child
population, it was way higher, something like 70-80%. I've seen some death
certificates from the late 19th century where the official cause of death
was infancy! Even queens weren't immune from losing their children: Queen
Anne in the 18th century had no less than 17 children, most of whom were
stillborn, yet left no heir to the throne. My own grandmother had 13
children, yet I only ever had one aunt and no uncles. Up to about 70 years
ago women expected to have to give birth a dozen times in order to have a
couple of children survive. Thankfully those days are gone, in the West at
least, because now if you have a child you fully expect it to survive. How
many people actively want a dozen children? Not very many; most people seem
to aim for two or three, which is the optimum number for keeping population
numbers stable. Because children survive the dangers of infancy, there is
absolutely no reason to have more children than you want - contraception
obviously facilitates this, abortion being a back-up if contraception fails.
Try to imagine society if every couple still had a dozen children, all of
whom survived, then tell me what is the difference between couples
restricting the number of their children to 2 or 3 by way of contraception
or via abortion. The net result is the same.

Also, what makes you think that abortion is a convenient form of birth
control? I've never had an abortion, but I can readily imagine that it

is a

distasteful and painful procedure, and anything but convenient.

Yet 46 million abortions are performed worldwide each year.
The inconvenience you speak of does not seem like much of a deterrent,
at least for some.

I think it does: 30 million women had 40 million abortions in the US over
the last 30 years, which means that up to 10 million women had more than
one. The other 20 million seem to have been deterred though, don't they?
(Though I suspect that if it were the men that had

to go through the procedure, the deterrent effect would be greater.)

I'm glad you acknowledge that. :)
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.

User: "LP"
Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life?	15 May 2004 06:07:05 AM

On Sat, 15 May 2004 08:27:33 +0000 (UTC), "junegill"
<junegill@btinternet.com> wrote:

"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:h7f7a05hdvfct9d27n8cbo5k7i74a784b9@4ax.com...

On Thu, 13 May 2004 11:38:33 +0000 (UTC), "junegill"
<junegill@btinternet.com> wrote:

"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:s3k6a09ldig00ndonm69q0b6h4bk4so1qk@4ax.com...

[snip]

Just what value does a zygote/embryo/foetus have to you? I find it hard

imagine that it could have any value to anyone except the pregnant woman

and

maybe her husband/partner and perhaps close family. Are you aware that

the

majority of fertilised eggs/embryos are spontaneously aborted (some

sources

say up to 75%)? You do not seem to mourn for them - why is that? Are

they

only of value if a woman's decision has been involved?

Worse than offensive. I'd be outraged, just as I am about the shooting on
sight of street children in Rio de Janeiro by military police.

I would like to point out that I do not view

destroying an unborn baby as bad as destroying a baby after it is
born,

Why is that?

but the value i speak of is of the same nature. The value I am

The earlier an abortion is done, the less it bothers me, and partially
for the reason you describe. However, there are many studies that show
that a fetus does feel pain in later stage of development. If you want
to find these studies, search google for "fetal pain" and you will
find hundred of web pages describing these studies.
http://www.google.com/search?q=fetal+pain&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&start=30&sa=N
The Fetal Senses
By David B. Chamberlain, Ph.D.
When prenates experience pain, they do not have the air necessary to
make sound, but they do respond with vigorous body and breathing
movements as well as hormonal rushes.
http://www.birthpsychology.com/lifebefore/fetalsense.html
http://www.gargaro.com/fetalpain.html
http://www.physiciansforlife.ca/fetalpain.html
http://www.abortionfacts.com/fetal_development/fetal_pain.asp
http://www.intowww.org/abortion/pain.htm
http://www.respectlife.org/articles/pain.htm
http://www.pro-vita.org/fetal_pain.htm
http://www.teensforlife.com/RealityCheck-FetalPain.html
http://www.nrlc.org/news/2001/NRL09/brit.html

Have you never heard of contraception failure? Condoms, for instance, can
break - my two surviving children are a testament to this.

Disliking someone's opinions seems a strange reason to adopt a stance,
unless you're here just to have a good argument, which is fair enough.

If someone opinion is rationally based, I would of course, not argue
their points. My responses are directed at the irrational claims that
many people seem to have and use to justify their stance on abortion.
Irrational claims like:
--The fetus is not one of the stages of life of the human animal.
--The fetus is not an organism.
--Sperm and ovum are stages in the life of humans just like the fetus
is.
--The fetus feels no pain.
These are false claims and are not rational reasons to support the
idea that there is nothing wrong with the widespread use of abortions
as a type of "morning after pill"

Also, what makes you think that abortion is a convenient form of birth
control? I've never had an abortion, but I can readily imagine that it

is a

distasteful and painful procedure, and anything but convenient.

Yet 46 million abortions are performed worldwide each year.
The inconvenience you speak of does not seem like much of a deterrent,
at least for some.

to go through the procedure, the deterrent effect would be greater.)

I'm glad you acknowledge that. :)

User: "H,R.Gruemm"
Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life?	16 May 2004 11:03:07 AM

LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<b4sba0d2orghpmvqrkkvukvdsouie9v5f7@4ax.com>...

On Sat, 15 May 2004 08:27:33 +0000 (UTC), "junegill"
<junegill@btinternet.com> wrote:
If someone opinion is rationally based, I would of course, not argue
their points. My responses are directed at the irrational claims that
many people seem to have and use to justify their stance on abortion.
Irrational claims like:
--The fetus is not one of the stages of life of the human animal.
--The fetus is not an organism.

It is, but so is a HeLa cell culture.

--Sperm and ovum are stages in the life of humans just like the fetus
is.

This is a perfectly true statement. Do you think that zygotes are
created ex nihilo ?
The human reproductive process starts at meiosis and ends at birth.
Fertilization, implantiation etc. are just points along this
development.

--The fetus feels no pain.

Embryos at the time when most abortions on demand are done feel no
pain. They lack a brain, you know.
Regards,
HRG.
.

User: "Lawrence E. McKnight"
Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life?	15 May 2004 04:13:13 PM

On 15 May 2004 06:07:05 -0500, LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com>
wrote:

It would help if you would provide, in context, where these claims
were made. As it is, I can comment on you screed.

--The fetus is not one of the stages of life of the human animal.

On this one, you really do need to provide a cite.

--The fetus is not an organism.

These arguments have been of the 'dueling definitions' sorts. You
problem is that you don't like the definitions others prefer, and they
don't like the ones you prefer. Tough nugs. That does not make their
statements any more irrational than yours.

--Sperm and ovum are stages in the life of humans just like the fetus
is.

But sperm and ova ARE stages in human life. I don't think any
pro-choicer has said 'just like'.

--The fetus feels no pain.

Provide a cite where this claim was made with no qualification as to
the stage of gestational development.

These are false claims and are not rational reasons to support the
idea that there is nothing wrong with the widespread use of abortions
as a type of "morning after pill"

And who has described abortion as a type of "morning after pill"?
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.

User: "MyTwoAngels"
Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life?	15 May 2004 06:23:22 AM

On 15 May 2004 06:07:05 -0500, LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Sat, 15 May 2004 08:27:33 +0000 (UTC), "junegill"
<junegill@btinternet.com> wrote:

"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:h7f7a05hdvfct9d27n8cbo5k7i74a784b9@4ax.com...

On Thu, 13 May 2004 11:38:33 +0000 (UTC), "junegill"
<junegill@btinternet.com> wrote:

"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:s3k6a09ldig00ndonm69q0b6h4bk4so1qk@4ax.com...

[snip]

Just what value does a zygote/embryo/foetus have to you? I find it hard

imagine that it could have any value to anyone except the pregnant woman

and

maybe her husband/partner and perhaps close family. Are you aware that

the

majority of fertilised eggs/embryos are spontaneously aborted (some

sources

say up to 75%)? You do not seem to mourn for them - why is that? Are

they

only of value if a woman's decision has been involved?

Worse than offensive. I'd be outraged, just as I am about the shooting on
sight of street children in Rio de Janeiro by military police.

I would like to point out that I do not view

destroying an unborn baby as bad as destroying a baby after it is
born,

Why is that?

but the value i speak of is of the same nature. The value I am

Abortion past twenty-four weeks is heavly restricted -- and for
reasons which are limited to health/life situations.
.

User: "Paul Anderson"
Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life?	13 May 2004 04:41:23 PM

On 13 May 2004 14:29:11 -0500, LP <whirl_po