From: pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 02:10:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.231517.24771@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.224610.9047@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren) writes:
>>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,

>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.

As exemplified by the above quotation which you made of what I said, I believe
that the fertilized ovum (and unfertilized ovum for that matter) are human.
I would distinguish "life", as used to conveniently describe a set of
physico-chemical  processes, from cognition.  For example, someone who is
brain-dead has life but no material cognition.  (Astral bodies are beyond
the scope of this network.)  Therefore, they have no meaningful life.
Likewise, the fertilized ovum has unique DNA molecules (and whatever else
is unique about their chromosomes).  But, unless we accept  material
hypophenomenonalism, we would probably agree that these molecules, while
unique, have no cognition.  Thus, they do not, as yet, have meaningful life.
>
>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.

The are several processes and decisions preceeding conception.  The biological
development of the parents.  Decisions about having sex, about using
contraceptives, about moving to Wisconsin, about deciding to talk to a girl
in the cafeteria.  Conception is just on of many processes leading to the
development of a unique human being.  And deciding whether or not to "have
an abortion" just after conception is simply one of several decisions which
are made for that unique human life to come into being.  A meaningful human
life eventuates when cognition develops, whenever that is.  To end the
life subsequent to that is tragic.  But I would hate to be a woman
carrying to term a child which I know to be seriously abnormal.  That is
why abortion is such a difficult issue.  There is the philosophical side
and the human/practical side.
>
>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.

I would say that economic issues have a lot to do with abortion.  Why do
you think the Netherlands has a much lower abortion rate than the US when
abortion is fully legal in that country.  Women have to consider how they
will care for the child, how they will care for themselves.  The women,
for whom economic concerns would sway their abortion decision, are not
likely to be swayed by tax cuts for the wealthy.  In fact, their pregnancy
may prevent their working, so they may not have an income to be taxed.
I would say that medical bills, rather than taxes, would be the chief
concern of most pregnant women.  Thus, if you want to lower the abortion rate,
it may be prudent to support universal health coverage (which Bush opposes).

Peter Lauren.