From: jocallag@darwin.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re:      Re: Moral Activity (was Re: Asylum)
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:37:23 GMT

In article <921217094248.20206155@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM> URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM writes:
>
>>Why do you say at birth?  Because that is when the umbilical cord is
>>cut?  If I remember my biology correctly, the umbilical cord, as well as
>>the placenta, is genetically identical to the child, not the mother.
>
>I suggested birth because at that point there is a "separate" individual.
>If you were to receive a kidney transplant, would you consider that
>new kidney a part of you, even if it were genetically different?
>So whether it is one organ, or a whole "body" of organs, it still can
>be viewed as part of the person it is contained within. Siamese twins
>and leeches are "external" cases, they can be viewed as one "biological"
>unit while attached together.
>Maybe it comes down to the point where if they were unattached, they
>could survive (commonly called "viability") that one becomes an
>individual 'whatever'.

I'm not sure I understand.  Do you really think that a foetus becomes an
individual when the umbilical cord is cut.  My wife is currently pregnant.
We heard the heart beat approximately six weeks ago in the tenth week of
pregnancy.  It beats approximately twice as fast as her heart.  We had a sonagram two weeks ago, real time, in which the baby was clearly moving its hand
with no direction from its mother.  Friends of ours had one in which the baby
was clearly swinging the umbilical cord around with its hand, as if playing.
These seem to be self directed activities, as does the complete physiological
development of the organism.  Its development is not subordinated to any other
larger organisms development as a bodily organ does; its development is not
a necessary part of the well functioning of a larger organism.  Its development
is completely in and for itself, biologically.  The development of the organs
that it will need to survive are driven not by the biological needs of its
mother, but by its needs.  It clearly undergoes developmental processes
even before implantation.  It develops an umbilical cord and a placenta in
order that nutrients can be transferred to it from the uterine wall.
On your view, if the doctor does not cut the umbilical cord for ten minutes
does it remain not an individual?

I don't think your analogy to organ transplants works.  When a genetically 
distinct organ is transplanted into someone one of two things can happen:
1) it is rejected by the organism, in which case it clearly does not become
part of the larger organism.
2) it is accepted.  If it is accepted it becomes a genetically distinct
part of the organism.  But it is significantly different from a fetus.
A fetus, though it is biologically connected to an organism, is independent
in its development, in the sense that its development proceeds from within
the organism, and is for the survival of the organism in its kind.  It
does not form a part of the mother, where its function is subordinated to
the organic functioning of the mother.  But in an organ transplant, the 
functioning of the organ is clearly subordinated to the well functioning of
the organism into which it is transplanted, and any further development that
takes place within it is a harmony with the functioning of the organism and
subordinated to it.  It is indeed genetically distinct, but subordinated in
its functioning to the organism.  A fetus is gentically distinct and attaches
to the mother for its own good, and is not subordinated to her functioning.
In fact there is a hormone, whose name I cannot recall at the moment, that the
zygote secretes before it ever implants that is absorbed by the mother that 
indicates to the mothers immune system that it sould relax its vigilence
soemwhat; otherwise the mothers immune system will treat the zygote as a
foreign body and destroy it.  But note the initiation is on the part of the
zygote.

The line above after 2) that says "though it is biologically connected to an 
organism, is independent in its development, in the sense that its development
proceeds from within the organism, as is for the survival of the organism in
its kind" should read "though it is biologically connecte to an organism, is
independent in its development, in the sense that its development proceeds
from within itself as an independent organism, and is for the survival of
itself as an organism in its kind."

>>  Further
>>the actual physical development of the child, from very early on, if not
>>immediately at conception proceeds according to biological principles within
>>the foetus, not the mother.  The mother provides the raw material of
>>oxygen and nourishment which the foetus incorporates into its organism
>>according to principles within it.
>
>Agreed, now let's get to the "individual" issue:-)

What would you say constitutes a living individual, if not that its 
development and action is in some sense self directed?
What criterion can you give for saying that the mother is an individual?
Maybe I just don't know what you mean by an individual.

>
>>  But if dependence upon another for raw material
>>such as oxygen or nourishment means that one is not an individual then a child
>>five minutes after having its umbilical cord cut is no more a person than is
>>the child in the womb.  Nor for that matter are most of us who are quite
>>physically dependent upon others for most of the raw necessities which we
>>incorporate into our organisms on the supposition that they are made
>>available to us.
>
>Agreed, dependence upon another for raw materials does not disqualify something
>as an "individual" something.
>

So what are you saying does disqualify something as an "individual"
something?

>Considering the fact that a day old baby is just as physically dependent
>>upon someone else, if not the mother, for providing it with the basic
>>raw necessities of food and water, why is it an individual?
>
>That day old baby is surviving as an independent biological "unit", it
>is no longer part of the mother's biological system. So, to me, there
>is a difference between physically dependent and biologically dependent.
>What this has to do with "legal" person, I don't know:-)
>I guess we could line up in court a sperm cell, a zygote, an embryo, a fetus,
>a baby, a child, an adolescent, an adult, and whatever else stage I might have
>missed and decide which one qualify as a "legal" person. All of them are
>human and at any one moment could be independent biological individuals
>(some with very short lifespans:-).
>

As a matter of fact, it is still part of the mother's biological system.
Immediately after birth, the baby is now placed at the mother's breasts
in order to feed.  Why you ask?  Well it turns out that the interaction of
breast feeding causes the mother to secrecte hormones that indicate that her
body should clot blood.  The child breastfeeding immediately after birth
stops the mother's bleeding.  Apparently doctors who in the past rushed the
babies to the nursery so they could be bottle fed with a nice inhuman sterile
implement of feeding did not know this, and consequently new mothers bled an
awful lot more than they had to, since this connection between child and mother
a connection of systematic biolgical interdependence has always been there.
Further, the child through breast feeding receives many antibodies from the
mother that it would not ordinarily receive except from illness.  The mother's
bllod pressure and volume also remain higher than normal as long as the 
child continues to nurse.  Further as long as it nurses the mother continues
to lactate, even over the course of several years.  Whereas when it ceases 
she will no longer lactate.  But so long as she is regularly lactating, she
also remains naturally infertile; and when she no longer lactates regularly
she will begin to ovulate.  Part of the reason I know all these things is that
my wife works in the field of pre-natal and post-natal childhood development.
There are more ways in which neither mother nor child are independent 
bilogical "units" in what appears to be your sense.  My wife could list them.
But I think you get the picture.

As far as your example involving the court goes, all I will say is that such
a decision, as the history of western culture seems to indicate, would be
probably made on the basis of power, not love.

Peace, and Happy Advent.
John


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU