[Re: New Abortion Quiz]

This response is not to take issue with Bill's perspectives, held by a
great many other folks as well. However, here is some additional detail
which is missing and some interspersed comments which may be relevant in
thinking through the description he provided. Most of the specifics are
drawn from a thought-provoking May 2004 Discover magazine article, "The
Good Egg". I don't have an alternative position all neatly worked out,
but it seems to me to be time to at least look more closely at the
information available - along with its implications - as we ponder this
new landscape.
Regards - JimA

Bill Yates wrote:

> Let's get down to basics...
>
> * Humans begin as the union of sperm and egg.
> * The DNA of the fertilized egg is human DNA, a combination of the
> parent's DNA.

But some recent news described a process in which an egg was stimulated
to begin the cell division process (development) without the benefit of
a sperm cell (but not a human egg, as I recall). Natural parthogenesis
is well recognized in chickens and some other living creatures.
One might make an argument that the new life is an extension of the two
parents' lives, not exactly the beginning of life per se.
Typically something like 20 otherwise viable eggs have "perished" having
started development at the same time as the fertilized egg (and for each
cycle in which no fertilization occurs). Likewise, a considerable number
of sperm have perished as well.

> * The fertilized egg is HUMAN, a human being, albeit in a very early
> stage of development.

At least two thirds of fertilized eggs, these humans, will fail to
implant or later spontaneously abort.

> * The fertilized egg is ALIVE. It takes in energy from the mother and
> grows.

Not quite - it takes several divisions before this happens. It's along
about day four, when there are something like 15-25 cells, that about
half of the cells begin to differentiate to become the placenta.

> * Therefore, we can accurately describe the fertilized egg as a LIVING
> HUMAN BEING.
> * We apply different terms to the developing human being depending on
> its stage of development.
> * Despite the different terms--blastocyst, embryu, fetus, baby--the
> developing human being is STILL A LIVING HUMAN BEING.

But there is a cloud over this statement in a way because some of those
blastocysts, embryos, and even fetuses never really ever had a chance to
become a living human being because their developmental biology and
potential was compromised, in some cases before the egg was fertilized.

The startling thing about the compilation of information in the
referenced article is that the natural process for human development is
evidently very inefficient (lossy), and even seemingly somewhat
indifferent about the loss of human life along the way. It might make
more precious surviving life. It might say the point is more about life
lived than life itself (which has its own implications about death and
dying!). Lots of food for thought here, and it's difficult turf
because it touches some foundation stones.

> * At the earlier stages of development, the developing human being is
> incapable of self-sustaining its life.

Most not even viable.

> * The fact that it is incapable of self-sustaining life does not
> negate or invalidate its essential character as a LIVING HUMAN BEING.
> * At various points in the human life span--infancy, accident,
> illness, during surgery--a person may be incapable of self-sustaining
> life.
> * The fact that one may be incapable of self-sustaining life does not
> negate or invalidate one's essential character as a LIVING HUMAN BEING.
> * The fact that one may be less capable than another of performing
> certain acts, ranging from cognition to ambulation, due to birth
> defect, accident, or illness, does not negate or invalidate their
> essential character as a LIVING HUMAN BEING.
> * Human beings are intrinsically significant and of value, not only to
> other human beings, but even more importantly, to God.
> * Therefore, the taking of any human life is an act of great import
> and not to be taken lightly.
> * There are very limited circumstances when the taking of human life
> is allowed: self-defense and war.
> * The taking of a human life for the convenience of another is immoral
> as it reduces the victim to the role of commodity for the pleasure of
> another and denies their essential worth as a human being.

A tubal pregnancy poses a problem not answered in this model. If you
look hard enough on the Internet, you can find and share a measure of
the difficulty and pain of conscience that Catholics scholars/clergy
have experienced in working toward an some sort of ethical/moral basis
for addressing this particular problem.
One might ponder how really different this dilemma is from the
ethical/moral problem posed by denying healing or life in the face of a
real liklihood of cures, restoration, or remission though cultivation
and manipulated specialization of previously undifferentiated stem cells.

> * Abortion, from sacrificing a fertilized egg for its stem cells, to
> "partial birth abortion", is the taking of a HUMAN LIFE.
>
> Blessings,
>
> --Bill Yates
>
Received on Wed Oct 13 20:52:30 2004