From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 23:15:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.224610.9047@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.045408.10743@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>>
>>But one question I pose to you is this: When can you say a "fertilized
>>ovum" becomes human?  At what point can you say this person becomes human?
>>
>It is always human, in the same way as my hair is human.  But, prior to the
>development of the CNS, it has no sense of identity.  As you have pointed out,
>it is distinguishable from its mother on the basis of its DNA structure.  So,
>shortly after conception, you are talking about protecting DNA molecules
>because they are unique.  I am not an authority on embriotic development and
>can, therefore, not say when a persona, or psyche, develops.  That is why
>abortion is such a difficult issue.  

I hope I am not assuming but: Do you support laws (as one of the means
of preventing some types of abortion, not the only) which protects the
unborn after the development of the CNS?

If you do, at least that's a good starting point where we can work together.

When you say you not an authority on embriotic development and can therefore
not say when a persona, or psyche, develops, great.  But at least we
agree that human life, can indeed exist in the womb.  Our difference is
WHEN?  You suggest the development of the CNS as a possibility.  You also
say that perhaps you may not know all the details about it.  That is fine.

But doesn't this imply that the unborn, can, indeed, be human life
before the development of the CNS?  Since we are unsure, and things
are legalized, aren't we playing around with human life?

Besides, how do you define the development of the CNS?  It seems like 
it goes from conception --> development of CNS == Human life.  All of a
sudden, a human life suddenly becomes human by virtue of the few magic 
cells which suddenly appear (or rather, those cells created by the DNA.
The entire human is defined already at conception.)

Once again, we have to analyze what abortion is.  One of the things
abortion does is to terminate a process (the process is the growth
of a human being).  That process may, in actuality, be a human being.

>
>I can say, in principle, that the fetus should be protected in the middle
>and later stages of pregnancy (or after the development of the CNS).  But, if
>my wife found, in the second trimester of pregnancy, that the fetus was
>seriously abnormal,  we would be faced with a very painful and difficult
>decision.  And, quite frankly, I don't know how we would act.  It is one
>thing to talk about such things and another to actually live through such
>circumstances.  It seems ironic that the republicans are the party which
>opposes abortion but is also the party which is least inclined to help the
>mother (parents) or the child.  To them, the only issue seems to be cutting
>taxes, particularly for the wealthy.


Well, I think we should all separate the economic policies and abortion.
Both ideologies (supply side, demand side) intend to better the lives of
people in general.  While you may say the Republicans don't care when
they cut taxes and don't spend on social programs, some of the Republicans
may say that by cutting taxes, you have more money to be able to fend for
yourself and choose the best care for your children.

I think both ideologies have the bettering of the people in mind.  You
may find it ironic, while others would say it is consistent.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40844 misc.headlines:5776 sci.econ:6953