Fetal Life and Abortion:
Human Personhood at Conception
____________________
Displayed Responses 2007
Displayed Responses 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010
2007
December 28th: Looking toward 2008, where is respect for human life headed - worldwide?
November 16th: Roe v. Wade's disregard for ethical principles
October 22nd: In the face of uncertainty, Do no harm!
October 16th: Persons "in the full sense" are being killed by abortion
October 4th: Five Years of No Human Cloning
September 11th: International Organizations vs. the people of the world
August 23rd: Where is this road leading us?
August 2nd: Six years of cloning, now what?
July 17th: WHOLE WORLD AGENDA abortion is dragging us under!
June 25th: WHY embryonic stem-cells will not work with adult tissue
June 15th: Roe hasn't fooled all of the people!
June 1st: World Bank and Laws of Nature
May 16th: Is abortion natural, in light of our humanity?
May 3rd: Serious questions about the competence of the Roe v. Wade decision
April 19th: "Abortion terminates a whole, separate, unique, living human being" - South Dakota
April 4th: Legalized Abortion Opposes Both, the Individual and the Common Good
March 28th: For the Common Good, I am My Brother's Keeper
March 20th: How Can We Ignore Decency?
March 6th: The Individual's Rights are Compatible with the Common Good
February 19th: Destroying the Family to Promote the Society Doesn't Make Sense
February 5th: Can You Prove that Partial-birth Abortion is Not the Killing of a Human Baby?
January 7th: Here is the latest on stem-cells
January 2nd: 2007: Will the Supreme Court make a watershed decision on partial-birth-abortion?
____________________
Reprinted from displayed responses June 1, 2007:
Editor's note: In recent postings we have mentioned the United Nations and the European Union, in their desire to relieve suffering in the world, pressuring applicant and member nations to embrace legalized abortion as a solution to their problems. We do not see abortion as a solution to world problems, but rather as an obstacle to the pursuit of lasting, effective remedies. We ask the question: What are some of the possible consequences of discarding the natural, and embracing the man-made substitutes, in technology and in the social order?
Recently, there have been initiatives by the World Bank: billionaires, celebrities, rock stars, and large philanthropic organizations, to launch an offensive against Third World poverty and disease. These efforts are well publicized in the media. If one were to go to the World Bank website, one would see that this effort has been going on since 1990 and has a target of attaining significant goals by 2015. Now we are in the last 7.5 years of the program and the efforts become front-page news around the world. Here is a link to the World Bank Group, describing the MDG's (Millennium Development Goals): http://web.worldbank.org/TOPICS/EXTHEALTHNUTRITIONANDPOPULATION/...
Our question is this: After the goals have been reached, will the world be able to say that the results truly benefited mankind? We suggest an affirmative answer only if those goals are based on the natural laws that truly fit our human nature.
We offer the following three reprints from our displayed responses as a review of Roe v. Wade's disregard of ethical principles, with emphasis on the principle of non-action in the face of substantial uncertainty with regard to possible hurtful consequences of an action. It is time for Roe to be held accountable.
September 24, 2004
Editor's Note: The recent decision, Norma McCorvey v. Hill (pdf), demonstrates again the difficulty of reversing Roe v. Wade from within the system of federal courts. (See opinion of Judge Edith Jones.) What would be required to reverse Roe is to demonstrate that an existing law, enacted prior to Roe, either directly or implicitly opposes Roe. We invite legal-minded viewers to bring such a law to our attention.
Comment: It is my concern that the mechanics of the U.S. judicial system may be impeding the process of justice. The blatant injustice of Roe is self-evident to thinking persons, but evidently not to the courts. The thinking person of good will sees injustice in a court action that sanctions the killing of the unborn in face of the strong possibility that the unborn are human beings. The Roe court professed ignorance about the beginning of a human being's life yet, in that state of substantial doubt, sanctioned the killing of the unborn.
In another instance, reasoning persons see the validity, in fact, the force of law in the age-old presumption that a pregnant woman is carrying a human being within her body. The Roe court ignored this presumption and instituted its opposite, namely, that the unborn is not a human being until proved to be so to the satisfaction of the court. There is no justice here; rather there is manipulation of law at the cost of justice.
Thinking persons, from within the workings of their human nature, have a reliable intuition concerning right and wrong, the stuff of justice. Many governments, from tribal to national, have been founded on the consensus of their constituents, based upon this well-established reality of human experience, called a sense of morality. As commonly accepted by human society, it is known as Natural Law. Formulated into a coherent system of thought and experience, it is called the Science of Ethics.
Courts operate from precedents, that is, prior decisions of courts. Ethics seems not to have a place in the proceedings of the court. One might wonder whether the precedents can be assumed to be ethically sound, or whether they, too, were decided without the benefit of Ethics.
It should be reasonable to expect the Supreme Court to follow the principles of Ethics in all its deliberations. It is reasonable that this could be mandated by the Legislature as a cooperative act of distributed power in governing our nation. It is reasonable that the Supreme Court should have some limits to its prerogatives of subject matter over which it is competent to rule. It should be noted that, currently, the Legislature is drafting a law which would prohibit the federal courts from tampering with the nation's Pledge of Allegiance, to protect it against those who would seek to delete the phrase "under God" from its wording. With reference to Roe, it is difficult to see how the Supreme Court considers itself competent to formulate its own definition of a human being, one that is contrary to the time-honored concept of the whole society.
Precedents can be misinterpreted. The Roe court took Griswold, a decision favoring the unrestricted sale of contraceptives, under the claim of "marital privacy" and turned it into Roe, a decision sanctioning a mother's killing of her unborn.
We invite our viewers in the U.S. to think about the need for ethical consideration on the part of our federal court system, in every one of their decisions. Retroactively, Roe would be a good starting point. Otherwise we continue to compound problems instead of adjudicating their fair solution. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
----------------
December 11, 2004
14th. Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Editor’s Note: Because of Roe v. Wade’s non-conformity with ethical principles, the people of the nation have a right to question its credibility. How does the Court justify its decision to act when they knew that serious harm to innocent persons could result from their action?
Reply: Your question refers to the Court’s decision to protect a woman’s disposal of her unborn “conceptus,” (that which had been conceived) not knowing whether or not the “conceptus” is a human being. By admitting that they did not know when the human life of a “conceptus” begins, the Court held open the possibility that it could have begun at conception and, therefore, that every “conceptus” is a human being.
The ethical principle states that in circumstances of uncertainty, a person may not “take chances” of inflicting harm. A familiar example cites an eager hunter who, seeing a bush move, shoots his gun without knowing for sure whether the bush was moved by a deer or by another hunter. The principle is simply phrased: In case of substantial doubt, where harm is possible, a person is not free to act.
The Roe court admitted that, if the defense could establish the humanity of the “conceptus,” the plaintiff’s case would be discarded. It should be noted here that the Court, at this point, inverted the burden of proof. The traditional presumption that a pregnant woman is carrying a human being was negated by the action of the Court, in demanding that the defense must prove the humanity of the "conceptus."
The Roe court, itself, made no representative effort, to determine the identity of the victim of abortion, which is the key question of that particular case. The Court was content to say that no one knows when the human life of the “conceptus” begins and, therefore it should not be expected of the Court to know either. Nor did the Court face what was to them the probability that sometime before birth, the "conceptus" would be human. The Court set no “upper limit” of time for a legal abortion. With that “resolution” of the key matter, the Court proceeded to “grant” legal protection for the mother’s disposal of the “conceptus.”
Ethics is the science of codifying principles of morality as they are perceived by human intelligence and applied to human actions to judge them as being good or evil. Aristotle spoke of this function of intelligence when he said that there are two purposes of the human intellect: first, to enable us to perceive harmonious order in the world of nature and, secondly, to enable us to copy that order into our own lives. It is this commonsense approach to human behavior that is missed in the Roe decision, as we have seen above. The Court overlooked the humanity presumption within pregnancy, a presumption upheld in human culture from the beginning of human history. It seems fair to say that the Court, in its eagerness to get rid of the pregnancy, found it necessary to get rid of the humanity of the "conceptus" first. Such a deliberate masking of the truth must be labeled for what it is, unethical. It should go without saying that Ethics cannot tolerate labeling the values proposed by seekers of legalized abortion as superior to the life of even a probably human "conceptus." Let the Roe court answer for that! E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
-----------------
July 6, 2004
Editor’s Note: We are currently attempting to locate a quotation from Robert Byrn, at one time a professor of law at Fordham University, faulting the Roe court for ignoring the presumption of human-ness in the unborn. We present some preliminary observations on that subject here for your consideration:
The presumption of innocence is a solid plank in the platform of justice in the United States of America. A person is innocent until he or she has been proved guilty. It would be a travesty of justice to reverse the presumption of innocence, at least in cases wherein the defendant cannot objectively prove his or her innocence. If intention, or motive, were pivotal in the case, how could a defendant prove a non-hurtful intention, except by his or her own testimony that, by inverted presumption, is presumed to be false?
Presumption of innocence is based on the experience of a people who see that, for the most part, human beings are honest and law-abiding. Doing what is right and proper is the norm of human behavior. When questions are raised, innocence is legitimately assumed, rather than guilt. Without such presumptions, society would have no stable foundation for evaluating human behavior. If, in the majority, human behavior should degenerate to the point where the presumption of innocence is no longer valid, the society would be in danger of immanent collapse.
Presumptions, as with enduring customs, have the flavor of law. They should not carelessly be ignored. Nevertheless, a significant presumption was ignored by the Roe v. Wade court. Moreover, that presumption was deliberately inverted, paving the way for the injustice of legalized abortion. From time immemorial, a pregnant woman was presumed to be carrying a human being in her body. The same presumption prompted the individual states of the U.S. to criminalize abortion. Yet, the Roe v. Wade court chose to disregard this presumption. The unborn’s human-ness was no longer to be presumed. In place of the time-honored presumption, the Court demanded that the unborn’s humanity must be proved in order to save his or her life from abortion.
To reinforce their contrived standard , the Court refused to entertain the required proofs offered by the defendant, by saying that no one, especially no one on the Court, knows whether human life is possessed by the unborn. Therefore, what had been generally presumed to be true cannot, by the criteria of the Court, be proved to be true. Thus, the Court has constructed an impregnable shield around its Roe v. Wade decision, impregnable even to the demands of justice. The Court’s 1992 decision, Casey, further illustrates this conclusion. In that decision the Court asserts that even they cannot bring Roe out into the open for review.
Had the normal workings of justice and commonsense been allowed to prevail Roe v. Wade could never have come into existence. It is interesting to note that no one, including members of the Court, has ever proved the unborn not to be a human being. Such a proof would have been required to justify the content of Roe, had it been attempted under the time-honored presumption of the unborn’s humanity.
It may be argued whether this behavior of the Court defies the laws of logic, but there should be no question of its disregard for the laws of ethics. If no one knows whether or not the unborn is a human being, the ethical presumption must be in favor of life, rather than of death, in justice for the unborn. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor’s Note: A writer for the Los Angeles Times, Jonah Goldberg, on October 16th asked a simple, rhetorical question: “If you’re unsure of whether human life begins at conception, why not give the unborn the benefit of the doubt? If Mr. Goldberg had posed this question to the Roe Court, in 1973, how would the Court have responded? Would the inception of legalized abortion in the U.S. have been averted? While you, the viewer, ponder these questions, we ask E.R. to offer his opinion.
Comment: Mr. Goldberg’s question is based on a well-reasoned, time-honored principle of Ethics. We are not morally free to act when we are doubtful whether hurtful consequences against the rights of another person may flow from the action. The classical example involves a hunter who sees a movement of branches, probably caused by a deer, or possibly by another hunter. In his uncertainty, to avoid the possibility of killing a human being, the hunter is not free to shoot.
It seems not to be on record whether the Roe Court did, or did not, entertain this ethical question. It is clear, however, that the court professed its ignorance about the beginning of a human being’s life and, yet, sanctioned the killing of the unborn. This is a direct violation of the ethical principle cited above.
It would be unfair to suggest that the Supreme Court is more interested in legal precedent than in Ethics. However, we question whether justice can be served without regard for ethical evaluation of judicial decisions. We emphasize this especially when a moral issue is central to the subject of a specific deliberation, in this case, what, or who, is being killed by legalized abortion. In face of the Court's uncertainty about whether human life is involved, surely Mr. Goldberg’s conclusion should have been self-evident to the Court, after having taken upon itself this matter of life and death.
Pertinent to our thinking here, we are curious whether the Roe Court disregarded other ethical consequences of their decision, such as ignoring the natural, protective right of the father of the unborn in question.
It may appear unduly presumptive to suggest that, after thirty-four years of legalized abortion, it is not too late to reverse the ethical errors of the Roe Court. We feel that such action is not only feasible; we see it as a matter of moral obligation. And, so, we do not merely ask: “Who will rise up to bring about this vindication of justice?” Rather, we affirm, strongly, that it is “We, the People,” who must rise, in unison, and demand justice for our brothers and sisters who are waiting to be born! E.R.
____________________
Reprinted from April 24, 2000:
Question: From your conversation of April 10th, I would conclude that the Constitution does not recognize the unborn as legal persons. Does this mean that the Constitution denies the unborn the status of human personhood?
Reply: I am not aware of any instance where the Constitution explicitly deals with the human personhood of the unborn. More than likely their personhood was "taken for granted" and no need was seen to formalize it by law.
The Constitution speaks of the person already born, granting him or her a legal status as a member of the political body, with corresponding obligations and rights. This is called legal personhood.
It should be noted that some of the states recognized by law certain instances of legal personhood on behalf of the unborn, such as granting them rights to inheritance and to damage (tort) claims. States which had criminalized abortion to protect the lives of the unborn, were doing more than granting them legal status. These states were recognizing the human personhood of the unborn. This can be seen from the fact that most of those laws resulted from the American Medical Association's insistence, in the 1850's, that human beings waiting to be born were being killed by abortion.
Since our federal government, through Roe v. Wade, has nullified these state laws, it might seem that it has now formally denied the human personhood of the unborn. We would like to think that our national government would not sanction by law the killing of human persons! Yet, they have sanctioned the killing of the unborn.
May I suggest that you continue thinking about your question (for which we thank you, because it has started us thinking also.) Ask yourself whether the Court was qualified to speak for our nation on the personhood of our unborn. Remember that they admitted ignorance as to the beginning of human personhood, yet "authorized" the killing, despite their doubt about what or who is being killed by the abortion which they were in the process of legalizing.
Ask yourself now, some 40 million deaths later, whether our government, "We, the people" are not remiss in our obligation to review that decision. E.R.
April 10, 2000 (reprinted)
Comment: My honest opinion on the interpretation of the word "person" in the 14th Amendment is that the matter is authentically debatable. On the one hand, the amendment was specifically geared to confirm the legal rights and equality of a class of humans to whom that had been denied. The Amendment's framers had an unspoken notion of a "person" as being a creature that has the nature of a rational animal. If confronted with the question, I suppose that a strong majority, with some trepidation, would conclude that personhood certainly exists before birth, perhaps from conception. On the other hand, they had a salient notion of legal personhood being another concept--a relational one that would embrace humans as subjects of the state. There was a prevailing assumption that the unborn had no representation in society distinct from their mother. This idea was analogus to coverture or entirety, where the legal personhood of one was subsumed into another while certain circumstances existed. The unborn were had yet to debute in society and therefore were not congnized as individuals by the law. It's just like today. We still don't name or paper children prior to birth--even if we know the sex prior to birth. There is an assumption that one has yet to be vested with an independent social status. While there are exceptions--even at common law, fetuses were treated as persons for some special purposes--and some people do name their children and even talk to them prior to birth--but you see my point. It's the whole en ventre sa mere concept.
I tend, with reservations, to assume that only born people are 14th Amendment persons. What this means is that legalized abortion, while unjust, is nevertheless constitutional--just as slavery was prior to the civil war amendments.
Roe was wrong in holding that (1) the constitution protects people's right to make procreative decisions [it simply does not,] and (2) that the state's interest in protecting the unborn was less than compelling, or otherwise inadequate. Error #1 caused the Court to apply a strict scrutiny, "compelling interest" standard. If error #1 is cured, error #2 would give way, since the "rational basis" standard would easily be met in nearly all cases.
Reply: We are grateful for your analysis of the Court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment, in reference to those included in its scope. You have struck upon the Court's peculiar selection of those persons covered by the 14th Amendment, namely those already born. This unwarranted limitation might as well have prohibited non-slaves from inclusion under that amendment.
Robert Byrn, in Fordham Law Review, Vol. 41, cites the Court on using criteria for inclusion in the amendment which are impossible for the unborn child to meet. He points out a procedural error which led them into this untenable position. You have touched upon it also: The Court, practically speaking, by-passed the necessary starting point of establishing legal personhood, namely establishing the individual human personhood of the one upon whom legal personhood would be granted by the government.
It would be helpful here to insist that two different realities are involved in this discussion: (1) the person as a human being and (2) the "stamp" of incorporation into the civic society." If such an "official stamp" demands that the person be already born, well and good, but it should not deny his personhood as a human being at any time prior to the "stamping." In fact, it would be ridiculous officially to "stamp with legality" something not already a person in the sense of being a human individual. ("Corporate persons" and "inanimate things personified" are not relevant here.) Surely there is no validity in the fiction that declaring someone a "legal person" causes him or her to become a human being.
Robert Byrn further stated that the framers of the 14th Amendment could not have wanted unborn persons to be excluded. The time of framing was immersed in the flurry of states' enactment of laws criminalizing the destruction of unborn children.
We would welcome other visitors with legal concern about Roe v. Wade to join us in attempting to bring about a juridical review of that decision. E.R.
____________________
Editor’s Note: This is a reprint on attempts at human cloning. It was our opinion, five years ago, that human cloning is not likely ever to be accomplished, and it still is our position. You might ask our reason for bringing up the subject at this time. We would reply, simply, that there is a lesson in those five years of expectation and experiment. Because of the intense political interest in attempts at human cloning, and the vast amounts of taxpayers’ money supporting those attempts, it is time to seek accountability for the expenditures. There are two questions here: Is human cloning probable, or even possible? And is the research aimed at answering this question ethically justified? We ask our viewers to help us provide answers to these questions. Please submit your comments at the end of the following Response.
Reprinted from displayed responses December 30, 2000:
Question: I would like to know more about cloning of human beings, and how it is related to the subject of abortion.
Reply: At the outset, I must alert you to my prejudice against the probability of cloning human beings, which I stated briefly in the preceding Reply. A quick review of cloning might be of some help to you, so let's begin with that.
Although the early experiments in animal cloning began with primitive organisms, it was not long until the more complex animals, Dolly, the sheep, for example, were cloned. The process of cloning begins with a mature ovum, from which the nucleus had been extracted. Into that enucleated, reproductive cell another nucleus is inserted. This new nucleus had been taken from a somatic (body) cell of an embryonic animal which is of the same species as the donor of the ovum. The artificially contrived cell is then placed in a maternal environment until it matures and is born, as was Dolly, to continue its otherwise normal life in the barnyard of the family farm.
The first significant feature pertinent to cloning is that the nucleus of an ovum possesses only half the number of chromosomes which are proper to its species. (In fertilization, the other half are given to the offspring by the male parent.) The nucleus of the embryonic, somatic cell, on the other hand, contains the full number of chromosomes proper to the species. The second feature to note is that the genetic parents of the clone, Dolly, for example, are the parents of the embryonic animal from which the implanted nucleus had been taken.
The third feature, which should be obvious, is that the clone is genetically identical to the embryonic animal whose nucleus had been implanted. The inherited characteristics of the clone are totally rooted in the chromosomes of that nucleus, since the ovum no longer had any genetic information to offer. This is the explanation of multiple, identical clones. The implanted, somatic nuclei used in their formation are all taken from the same embryonic animal.
There is a certain element of mystery in the origin of the lesser animal organisms, even when they result from the natural process of fertilization. Neither the sperm nor the ovum is an organism. Yet, they combine to produce an organism. Whence does the unifying, specific principle of the new organism's life (soul) arise? Neither parent, each having only its own soul, is able to supply a soul for its offspring. Their offspring's soul must come from the potency of matter, an endowment "built into" nature by its Author.
Speaking of clones, the individual life of the clone arises from the combined matter of the enucleated ovum and the nucleus of the embryonic cell, vitalized by an animal soul, which had been "resident" in the potentiality of the life-related matter contributed by the two cells. It must be noted that neither the embryonic nucleus nor the ovum, of itself, could be the matter of a new organism. It is only when combined and vitalized by an animal soul that they lose their own identities and become the new organism.
Finally, you must keep in mind that the vital activity manifest by the lesser animals is always totally material (physical.) What they know and what motivates them is always a material object. This indicates that their souls, the source of these activities, are material principles of life and belong to the natural world of material things. It is because nothing other than matter is involved in their reproduction that the lesser animals can be cloned, with the help of nature, by the biologist.
Although animal cloning has not been found in the undisturbed workings of nature, its biology and philosophy are not totally different from that of fertilization, wherein an ovum and sperm are combined by an animal soul to be a new individual. In cloning, previously organized, life-related matter is also combined and vitalized by an animal soul. The artificially devised cell contains the nutritive and structure-building materials of the ovum and the complete "genetic blueprint" of the somatic cell. In this sense, it is biologically the same as a fertilized ovum (zygote,) except that none of the genetic information had come from the ovum. The world of nature provides a vast variety in modes of reproduction, but Biology does not pretend to know all the possibilities which may yet exist. A primitive form of cloning might well be present even in the asexual reproduction of bacteria, under the phenomena of transduction and transformation.
May I now offer my reason for opposing the probability of human cloning: Humans, by contrast with the lesser animals, through actions which are proper to human beings, manifest a non-material principle of life, a uniquely human soul, which cannot be explained by any potentiality of matter. Human souls, then, must come directly and individually from the Creator of all living things. You might wish to consider whether the Creator would be inclined to "honor" the ill-advised dream of those who would attempt to clone human beings. They strive to distort His providential plan for giving life and destiny to all human beings, as He has given to us, each a unique person, born from and loved by his or her own parents.
You ask how attempts at human cloning are related to abortion. There is a physical similarity. Insofar as the required somatic cell is taken from an embryonic human being, causing his or her death, cloning involves the deliberate killing of a human being, as does abortion. But, even if the somatic nucleus could be taken from an already-born human, with only injury and not loss of life, there is another atrocity present here, common to cloning and abortion. It is a moral and psychological one, a wanton disregard for the rights and dignity of the individual human being and of his or her Creator. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Response (August 23rd): The road we are headed down, at the very least, is the well-beaten path that has characteristically destroyed republics in the past: liberty gradually turning into license. The ridiculous idea that by instituting changes into a common law legal system, operating by precedent, which allow and encourage larger, more powerful, more experienced humans to destroy smaller, weaker, and less experienced humans is a tyranny in the case of the individual. Wide scale use of such a ‘right’ (I can’t think of a clearer case of a ‘wrong’) can only encourage tyranny on a wider scale. Such changes are not ‘enlightened and progressive refreshments and renewals of the traditional American love of freedom’. They are cancerous implants in the body politic which encourage lust, murder, and greed.
Reply: Your observation expresses our concern about self-established, international organizations that would dictate their social agenda to the world. Under the enticement of economic aid, these organizations, such as the United Nations and the European Union, demand that prospective member nations “modernize” their laws pertinent to “reproductive rights, ” to include legalized abortion. The enticement, of course, is subtly hidden under the claim that great numbers of women are dying from the consequences of illegal abortion.
Even assuming the claim to be correct, we question whether abortion is the proper solution to this problem. Would it not be better for the underprivileged country to save their man power and build up an economic sufficiency? The international organization could provide a “jump-start” to that economy, such as offering the poorer nation maternal health care and by discouraging abortion. Educational and nutritional assistance should be added to build the small nation into an economic partnership with the rest of the world. Then, the international organization will be able to reap its profit, the well being of our human society.
The international organization cannot vote, directly, in any national election, but it can, and does, prejudice the process, from within the country, by a well-planned strategy of economic persuasion. Pressures on Third World countries, in South and Central America and in Africa, are especially evident to a reader of current events. In the European arena, one may well question the “surprise attack” and consequent pro-life defeat in Portugal, and the current pressure play against Ireland, Poland and Malta.
While writing these lines, I ponder the events of six years ago today, September 11th, when terrorists portrayed their social agenda in bloody violence against innocent and defenseless human beings, in the United States of America. Without doubt, the international organizations do not intend to become partner to such violence but, in reality, their “stealth approach” to eliminating the offspring of human parentage, has the same end effect, the violation of human rights and the refusal to honor the dignity of human individuals.
We ask the obvious question: Where is the overview of the self-appointed, international organization? And, a more telling question: Why does the rest of the world stand by and allow the depredation of our smaller, less affluent nations, the destruction of their moral culture and their rightful self respect? E.R.
_____________________
Editor’s Note: In 1956, Life Magazine displayed some pictures of babies, photographed within their mothers’ wombs. No one questioned whether those babies, even those pictured in early gestation, were human babies. The pictures were evidence of their humanity! Moreover, as “back up” evidence, there was the universally held presumption that what a pregnant woman carries in her body is a human being.
When several states in the U.S. began to liberalize their abortion laws (1968) and when Roe v. Wade appeared on the scene, 1973, the babies were suddenly transformed into “blobs of tissue.” They were no longer babies! For Roe, they were “not persons, in the full sense.”
The next turn in this history, like a small detour in the road, called Existentialism, the “blob of tissue” disguise was abandoned. Now there was a human being again, but not yet free of the abortionist’s instrumentation. The trump card here was “Experience” and the baby was always Less Experienced than the mother.
For several, following years, the abortion victim’s identity seemed not to have been a significant factor. The “custom of abortion” that had developed required no apologies. Then came the advent of cloning and stem cells, with emphasis on human, embryonic stem cells. The debate was up and running again, but this turn in the road is different.
Now, in 2007, it is the scavengers of embryonic, human stem cells that reveal the truth. They want human stem cells, and they go directly to the human embryo to get them. The embryo, then, is nothing other than a human being, since only human beings can produce human stem cells!
But, even here, the embryonic human is still defenseless. We, The People, have taken our eyes off of the road, where “road kill” is acceptable under the thoughtless guise of “helping others,” who find profitable salvage in the wreckage of human lives.
We ask the students of History among our viewers: “Where is this road leading us?” E.R.
____________________
Editor’s Note: Although public interest in human cloning has waned during the past few years, we repeat here, as a lesson learned from history, some cautious thoughts offered six years ago. Since that time, Dolly, the cloned sheep, has been euthanized in response to degenerative effects of the cloning process. And the projected cloning of a human being has not materialized.
Reprinted from displayed responses November 26, 2001:
Question: In our local paper this morning, Nov. 26th, another claim of human cloning has been published. This time the claim is attributed to Advanced Cell Technology, of Worcester, Massachusetts. For me, this claim raises two concerns: 1. the scientifically undemonstrated basis of the claim; 2. In the face of the assumption that human beings have been cloned, their justification on grounds of benefit to others.
As to the second concern, I cite the principle that the end does not justify the means; a human being may not be sacrificed for the benefit of others. My first concern is more complicated. What proof do they have to back up their claim? I have seen no proof offered and so, at best, their claim is merely an assumption.
Reply: Your handling of your second concern is brief, but well stated. To this ethical problem may I propose an additional area of concern, the misleading ease with which the proposed benefits are promised. Authentic, beneficial research is being neglected because of unrealistic promises favoring embryonic stem-cells, whose use has already been demonstrated as non-productive. LINK
Your first concern is one shared by all the scientific community. Careless claims, in the name of science, should not be tolerated. In this instance, Advanced Cell Technology has no proof that they have cloned human beings. Genetic examination of their clump of cells can show nothing but the genotype of the skin cell with which they started their experiment. And that skin cell, although taken from a human being, was not itself a human being. Further, a human being is an organism. They have not demonstrated a self-serving, spontaneously motivated individual striving purposively toward ends compatible with human nature.
Advanced Cell Technology might respond to my objection by saying that human beings, at their four or six cell stage of development, don't look different or act differently from their clump of cells. I would point out to them that a "clump of cells" resulting from the fusion of a human ovum and a human sperm could be identified as a human being because it is known with certainty that all of us went through that very same stage during our development and proceeded to what we are today. They have no valid claim to saying that their clump of cells, starting with an enucleated ovum and a skin cell, is on the same path as we were at that stage of our development. They've never seen one of their clumps of cells develop into an artist or even into a baby.
It may interest you to consider our reason for suggesting that human cloning is not likely ever to be accomplished. LINK
____________________
Editor’s Note: We reprint this Response of almost two years ago because of today’s increased clamor for legalized abortion as the “cure” for economic and social ills throughout the world. Commonsense is no longer evident in the market place of values where the killing of our young has become a priority of individual and social management. We invite our viewers to scan the materials of this web site for further insights into the need, worldwide, of working together to stop this trend of irresponsible and destructive behavior.
Reprinted from December 5, 2005:
Comment: Many countries around the world are experiencing internal conflict on the subject of abortion. Some are striving to clothe abortion with legitimacy by legalizing it, as in the U.S. Others are denouncing abortion as morally and socially unacceptable and are fighting attempts at legalization. Some are still looking for ground upon which to embrace both of these contradictory positions.
Concerning the United States, your site speaks frequently of the Supreme Court's decision of 1973 as a source of social unrest. I appreciate your coverage of that decision because it gives insight into abortion even as it exists in some of the other countries. What disturbs me about our country is the imposition of legalized abortion upon the people by a court of law, without oversight provision on the part of the people. One specific detail, completely beyond my understanding, is the Court's denial of a father's right to defend his child's life against the mother's choice of abortion.
Reply: You have struck upon some roots of resentment felt by a people who have been disenfranchised from their role in government, and from their individual rights. The individual states in the U.S. had spoken their minds against the practice of abortion, yet our Supreme Court over-rode their sincere and well-crafted legal enactments.
As for the disenfranchised fathers, your reaction is understandable. It simply doesn't make sense "to rob Peter in order to pay Paul." By "giving rights" to the mother, rights had to be "taken away" from the father of the child. This is but one of the many contradictions in the "logic" of Roe v. Wade. Imagine! A father wanting to fulfill his obligation to defend the life of his child, and being denied by our Supreme Court the exercise of his right to do so!
Similar resentments are shared by all thinking persons of good will in every nation where abortion has been legalized. The basis of that resentment is the insensitivity of their country's disregard for the humanity of the unborn and, therefore, of all humanity.
With regard to this insensitivity, I would offer a suggestion: The success of upholding human dignity in any one nation is contingent upon what the rest of the world holds, in practice, on the nature of human beings. Perhaps this has not always been so, but it appears as self-evident in our age of extensive and instantaneous communication. In exercising our prerogative of making choices, we humans tend to justify our own less noble conduct by the "approved" example of others. This, in the course of time, becomes a vicious circle or, more accurately, a downward spiral of social degeneration.
May I suggest that the Internet could become a forum for international discussion of human values. Such discussion, embraced by persons of all persuasions, could promote a sense of solidarity of people with one another in the pursuit of truth, justice and, perhaps, even peace. If this were to be accomplished in the midst of our present turmoil, the unborn of our confused society will not have died in vain. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
6-26-07 Editor’s Note: The U.S. legislature is currently debating the question of funding stem cell research that includes the destruction of embryonic humans, for experimentation. There is a moral issue, that humans are not commodities for the service of others. Also there is a practical, apparent contradiction, that the objective being sought, namely, the healing of specific diseases with human embryonic stem cells, has no evidence of fulfillment.
Despite the extravagant thirst for money to spend on human, embryonic stem cell research, success is not forthcoming. Elementary Biology gives a simple reason for the failure: Embryonic stem cells differentiate satisfactorily in an embryonic environment, but not when transplanted into mature tissue. See explanation, below.
In the midst of recurring failures, there is an interesting, incidental consequence arising from research with human embryonic stem cells. It is reassurance that conception (fertilization) is the beginning of a human individual’s life. The researchers want embryonic, human stem cells. Their practice of using cells not older than a few days after conception (fertilization,) is evidence that those cells are human stem cells. This could be an argument against those who attempt to define conception as occurring at implantation, some seven days after fertilization.
Editor's Note (1/12//07) Because of current deliberations in the U.S. Legislature on the funding of embryonic stem cell experimentation we present this review of the Biology and Ethics pertinent to embryonic stem cells. Our point of emphasis is why they should not be used: Biology explains why embryonic stem cells do not function when transplanted into mature tissue. Ethics explains why embryonic humans should not be killed, even for the supposed benefit of other human beings. Commonsense explains why adult stems cells, from various organs of the adult body, or from umbilical cords or from amniotic fluid, or hair follicles, and so forth, should be used by the healing profession, since they function well in adult tissue, to replace and repair injured tissue, without injury to the donor. Adult stem cell experimentation should be funded by the government, for the common good of the people. Here are a couple of current articles on cells from amniotic fluid: Science & Technology at Scientific American.com: New Source of Stem Cells: Amniotic Fluid Amniotic Fluid Is Excellent Source Of Stem Cells (from MedicalNewsToday.com).
1-12-07 Reprinted from September 30, 2004:
Editor’s Note: Because of considerable confusion on the ethics of stem-cell research, we offer a brief review of this important subject. Stem cells are minimally differentiated cells that have the capability, in a suitable environment, of dividing into various kinds of cells, as needed by the organism that possesses them. From the one-celled stage (zygote) of a human being there will arise three basic tissues of cells (ectoderm, mesoderm and endoderm.) Each of these tissues contains some stem cells from which will arise the more highly specialized cells needed to produce all the structures (organs) of the completed body. Further, each of the structures, after completion, will contain some stem cells, to be developed for replacement and repair of the tissues in that structure. These are found throughout the individual’s lifetime. These are called “adult stem-cells.”
In the first few hours of the human individual’s life, a stem cell in the process of division is capable of producing daughter cells different from itself. (differentiation) This occurs naturally in its proper environment, that is, in the embryo (early stage of fetal development.) These are called “embryonic stem cells.”
A researcher might presume that embryonic stem cells could be inserted into adult tissue to produce specialized cells for replacement and repair of that adult tissue. This presumption presents two serious problems. First, extracting stem cells from a living embryo brings about the death of that embryonic human individual. It is ethically unacceptable to kill one human being for the benefit of another, or even countless others. The second problem rises in the failure to conform to the design of cell division and cell differentiation as it occurs in the animal organism. The researcher must not overlook the precise purposiveness of nature.
As indicated above, embryonic stem cells perform well in the embryo. They do not perform well in adult tissue. That is because both cell division and cell differentiation are orchestrated by the needs of the organism. The organism directs the cell by means of the content of the lymph (blood plasma) that surrounds the cell and by its timely programming that demands a specific response. The cell’s response is a reaction to factors of its immediate environment. The environment in which embryonic stem cells can act naturally is not found in adult tissue. There is more than a mere “generation gap” here. The adult environment lacks not only suitable content to stimulate the embryonic stem cell, but it also lacks the suitable timing for its proper response.
Many experiments using stem cells from the human embryo have been undertaken in the attempt to cure disabilities of various kinds in adult, human patients. There has been no success reported. On the other hand, adult stem cells employed for the cure of adult disabilities has a good record of success. The ethical problem here is quite clear: Research with human, embryonic stem cells is additionally improper because it deceives by its propaganda patients who are suffering disabilities, who might otherwise find relief in the use of adult stem cells. The moral imperative is simple: Human, fetal stem cell research, whether by government or by private companies, violates ethical principles of serious significance and destroys the moral integrity of its practitioners. Research with adult stem cells, on the other hand, should be encouraged. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
1-12-07 Reprinted from September 27, 2006:
Question: I am confused about stem cells. I would appreciate knowing why there are contradictory claims favoring one kind over another.
Reply: The name "stem" has been given to a cell from which a line of differentiated cells can be started. Its name, by analogy, is taken from the trunk, or branch, with reference to that which grows outward from the trunk or branch, such as leaves, flowers and fruit. In this discussion let us use the relationship of stem and flower, the flower being that which grows out of the stem. The stem seems to give rise to a diversity of structures, principally reproductive, in the flower. The relationship of stem to flower indicates that the flower, in some away, is present in the stem, even before it makes its appearance outside of the stem.
This, of course, is a simplification of a complex process of structure and function, attributable not to the stem, but to the entire plant of which the stem is only a part. The concept helps us to understand that some of the cells which are part of the stem will divide, not to increase the size of the stem, but to produce new cells, different from themselves. This is called differentiation. These new cells, in their turn, also differentiate as they divide, eventually producing cells which are petal cells, pollen and ova, or cells of pollen tubes and of other structures which form the flower.
I speak of my definition and example as a simplification because they do not explain how some cells constitute the stem and others, seemingly of the same kind, go on to produce the flower. It might help here to suggest some items for further thought: Cells come from cells. This raises the question of whether, in any given line of cells, the initial cell possessed everything which the end of the line possesses. The problem here is to have a sufficient cause to explain the effect, remembering that a thing cannot give what it hasn't got.
This production of flowers is but one example of how a cell can, in some manner, contain the "stuff" of cells more complicated than itself. The most radical example is seen in the single-celled stage (zygote) of any organism produced by sexual reproduction. It is both a stem-cell and an organism. During its very early development the cells which the organism produces have been designated as embryonic stem-cells, about which we center this present discussion.
In a very real sense, the zygote contains all of the "stuff" needed to bring itself to maturity. However, it proceeds toward maturity by producing, sequentially, the next round of cells, as required by its genetic information. In each succeeding "generation" of cells, the new cell will possess whatever is necessary for doing its own job and for equipping the next "generation" to do likewise. In this way the organism develops itself, through the production and proper use of its cells. The organism, of course, "fleshes-out" its original "stuff" by using the material of its environment, as needed, in its progress toward maturity.
It is important to note that the total process is not only under the control of the organism, directed by its genetic "blueprint," but that it is always influenced by the immediate environment in which the process occurs. Those environmental factors may be as simple as optimum temperature, adequate solvents for the reacting substances, electrical and magnetic, even gravitational, fields of force, along with the more complex factors, such as stimulus of neighboring cells, and the presence of compatible enzymes to act as catalysts for the chemical reactions.
The claim of capability to develop organs from embryonic stem-cells, such as heart, is even more unfounded. You may have seen a picture of muscle tissue "beating," but a functioning heart is more than its muscle.
If I may say, briefly, the living organism is not a machine, whose parts can be welded or bolted together, but rather a continuous whole whose "parts" are so interwoven, both in structure and in function, that none is independent of the others. The action of the "parts," whether cells or organs, is sequentially "programmed," so that what a cell can do in its embryonic environment, should not be expected from that cell when transplanted elsewhere. You must keep in mind that it is not the cell which is doing the acting. The actor is the organism which possesses, and function through, the cell. This might help you to understand why stem-cells of adult organisms are better than embryonic ones, when they are asked to serve mature tissues.
From our discussion, you can see that stem-cells are not limited to organisms in their embryonic stage of existence, called embryonic stem-cells. Even in your adult body there are stem-cells, just as in the flowering plant which may be several years of age. The red blood cells, active in your circulatory system, are the end product of a line of less-differentiated cells resident in the marrow of your bones. In older terminology the beginning of the line was called a "mast- cell." This example is not far different from that of the cells in the stem and flower of the plant.
Another source of adult stem-cells is body fat. It is also amazing that most organs of the body contain stem cells, which nature provides for regeneration and repair of their damaged tissues. Recent research shows that the "islands of Langerhans," cells scattered around in the pancreas (which produce insulin for metabolizing sugars) can be replaced by the action of pancreatic stem-cells, after the "destroyer" of those "islands" has been vanquished.
Although embryonic stem-cells have been thought to be superior to adult stem-cells for the purpose of "repair or replacement," there is not sufficient evidence to support the claim. In fact, embryonic stem-cells inserted into ailing, adult brain tissue have sometimes worsened the disability. Adult stem-cells, on the other hand, do show promise which is upheld by ample evidence. (See: displayed responses October 21, 2004)
In a previous Reply I have stated clearly that the use of human, embryonic stem-cells, even if they were of utility to others, would be unethical to "harvest," since that would involve killing the embryonic human who possesses them. This brief, overly-simplified glimpse into the biology of embryonic stem-cells adds a pragmatic reinforcement to that moral prohibition. Adult stem-cells, on the other hand, can be obtained without injury to the volunteer donor, and could be used ethically for research and healing. E.R reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Reprinted from displayed responses August 11, 2006:
Some questions for E.R.: First of all, allow me to say that I find your website interesting because it attempts to answer the significant questions: When does human life begin? What is a human person? What is legal personhood? What are rights and obligations? These are terms necessary for our government’s discussion of “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness,” the core of our nation’s Declaration of Independence.
I hesitate to compare Roe v. Wade and its progeny as a cancerous growth, with progeny developing from the primary abnormality, which is the decision of 1973. So, then, let this be my first question: Are the decisions of the courts, insofar as they are following an erroneous model, namely, Roe v, Wade, aptly characterized as cancerous development? As a biologist, maybe you can answer that one. To advance this analogy further, a person might suspect that the juridical system’s dependence on precedents would be an avenue for the transfer of malignancy, from one decision to another.
Secondly, your website is a kind of inspiration to defeatists like me, because I never thought there would be a chance of reversal or annulment, given the finality of a Supreme Court decision. I must say that the Pro Lifers have distinguished themselves for their perseverance in this matter. In the fall of this year, a review of the partial-birth abortion ban, requested by the U.S. Justice Department has been scheduled. Might this signal an opening of the court’s exclusive judgment, at least on some radically profound subject matter, such as the right to life of the unborn?
My third question: Since the FDA is toying with release of the “morning after pill” for over-the-counter distribution, and various other substances already available, will chemical abortions make Roe v. Wade unnecessary to protect those seeking abortions?
All of the above can point to an ominous direction. You said once in response to a young person ( September 30, 2001) “In growing up you may learn that all of us have faults, along with our good points. Even governments can have faults. In a democracy, such as we are, these faults reflect the imperfections of the people of the nation. Legalized abortion is an example of such a fault in our own country.” Is this not a serious defect, that a government and people supposedly in charge of it, have cooperated in, or have ignored, the destruction of human life?
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson does not only proclaim the “inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.“ He continues, with this firm statement of an obligation of the citizenry to uphold those rights: “….whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right, it is the duty, of the people to alter or abolish it.” Although all of the colonists did not agree on the immediate application of this principle to their case at hand, the Founding Fathers risked their lives and their fortunes to apply it to the founding of a great nation, the United States of America.
I am aware of Abe Lincoln’s saying that you can fool all of the people some of the time but, once again, with reference to the right to life of the unborn, some of the people were not fooled any of the time, namely, those under the Pro Life banner. A person might speculate about the consequences, if Mr. Jefferson were wrong about people, or if Mr. Lincoln’s “some of them who can be fooled all of the time” should be the majority. Where would we go from there?
Reply: Many thanks for your favorable remarks concerning out web site! As to your first question, comparing Roe v. Wade to a cancerous growth on the political body of the U. S. government, I can see some merit in your analogy. A cancerous growth is a development within an organism, but not controlled by the organism. It is a development not in conformity with the natural plan of the organism’s structure or function but, rather, in opposition to its nature. The Supreme Court’s sanction of legalized abortion in 1973 and the consequent development of that malignancy until the present day, are not compatible with the American spirit of “justice and liberty for all.”
The interesting analogy you offer could be extended by noting that it was not the body politic, the American people, who initiated the legalized destruction of our brothers and sisters who are waiting to be born. It was only one organ of the body, the Supreme Court, whose revolt against the time honored institutions of that body, which brought down the healthy process of good government in the United States.
In reply to your second question, I think it quite likely that, sometime soon, any reference to Roe that comes before the Supreme Court will finally demand an examination of Roe v. Wade, and that decision will be found wanting. This October’s examination of the federal law banning partial-birth abortion could demand a review of the 1992’s Casey’s “undue burden” phrase, and other similar gratuitous expressions generated by the Court, beginning with the mysterious invention of “right to privacy.”
In answer to your third question, the chemical abortion is not completely a hidden process, nor one completely divorced from the assistance of pharmaceutical and medical professionals. Nor is the process totally without biological pitfalls, and it is not emotionally palatable for mothers to dispose of the dead bodies of their own offspring. And its end purpose is the same as the surgical abortion, an act of killing. No, there will still be a need for laws opposing abortion, and those laws, for the most part, would be enforceable. After all, it is the primary obligation of a government, to protect the lives of its members. Those laws will teach the people to respect one another’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We would not long be a nation, unless we had laws against killing one another
Your quotation from President Lincoln is thought provoking. What people do when they learn that they have been fooled or, even more so, when they learn that they have fooled themselves, is not always pleasant to witness. There is considerable resentment on the part of many early converts to the Women’s Liberation Movement, now that their childbearing days are over. Currently, a women’s group favoring abortion, is gathering names of women who will have their names published in a magazine under the title of having had an abortion. This strategy could backfire, by reminding a person of Shakespeare’s observation that “the woman doth protest too much.”
More recently, perhaps, the legislatures of South Dakota and Louisiana could be used to exemplify a reaction, however problematic, to having been fooled long enough already. Sometimes it takes the bottom of the barrel to remind us that there is no other way than up. E.R reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor's note: In recent postings we have mentioned the United Nations and the European Union, in their desire to relieve suffering in the world, pressuring applicant and member nations to embrace legalized abortion as a solution to their problems. We do not see abortion as a solution to world problems, but rather as an obstacle to the pursuit of lasting, effective remedies. We ask the question: What are some of the possible consequences of discarding the natural, and embracing the man-made substitutes, in technology and in the social order?
Recently, there have been initiatives by the World Bank: billionaires, celebrities, rock stars, and large philanthropic organizations, to launch an offensive against Third World poverty and disease. These efforts are well publicized in the media. If one were to go to the World Bank website, one would see that this effort has been going on since 1990 and has a target of attaining significant goals by 2015. Now we are in the last 7.5 years of the program and the efforts become front-page news around the world. Here is a link to the World Bank Group, describing the MDG's (Millennium Development Goals): http://web.worldbank.org/TOPICS/EXTHEALTHNUTRITIONANDPOPULATION/...
Our question is this: After the goals have been reached, will the world be able to say that the results truly benefited mankind? We suggest an affirmative answer only if those goals are based on the natural laws that truly fit our human nature.
Reprinted from displayed responses June 12, 2006:
Editor’s Note: Our previous posting suggests that legalized abortion is in opposition to nature and, as a consequence, is hurtful to those who subject themselves to it. We indicated a related incidence of breast cancer as a physical consequence, and post-abortion syndrome as a common psychological aftermath. Today’s posting considers the value of compliance with “the laws of nature,” and “Natural Law.” The former governs physical reality and the latter governs human behavior.
Comment: Without needing to discuss the origin and development of “the world of nature” as we know it today, most observers would agree that it is a system in agreement with itself and that it is purpose-driven in all its functions. Significantly, it should be added that its purposes, unless impeded, always attain their objectives. And, if impeded, the foiled purposes will be accompanied by unwelcome circumstances, called natural sanctions, penalties for violating “the laws of nature ” and “Natural Law.”
On a large scale of social consequences, legalized abortion has upset, worldwide, a natural system of economics. With many countries having aborted one-third of their pregnancies, there are no longer enough young people to support the elderly. The elderly, in turn, instead of being treasured to function as wise advisors of the youth, are offered legalized assistance to remove themselves from the society by suicide. Society cannot survive such an arrangement. It just isn’t natural.
There is another economic error in depriving the society of the aborted one-third of its membership: revenue, equal to the cost of goods and services not purchased for them, is missing from the current economy.
Legalized abortion has become a device for gender selection and endangers the natural balance of approximately equal numbers of baby girls and baby boys. As a result, society suffers the lack of an essential resource for the building of new families and, therefore, introduces a progressive decline of the society. A more subtle, because psychological, harm is hidden in gender selection and consequent aborting of the undesired child: Human dignity is lessened by using children as “things,” instead of recognizing them as our brothers and sisters in the human race. Selfishness is replacing the natural tendency of human individuals to support the common good.
To see legalized abortion as the destroyer of nations might seem far-fetched, but the declining population of many countries throughout the world is, at least partially, due to legalized abortion. And even if those countries are eventually replenished by immigration, they will have been replaced by a different culture and, therefore, will have lost their original identity as a nation. It should go, without saying, that the nation is a natural unit, just as is the family, of our human society. “Nation” and “nature” and “natural” are taken from the past participle of the same Latin verb “natus sum.” (to be born.)
It would be fair to say that legalized abortion deprives our society of talents and beneficial ingenuity, by eliminating the possessors of these social goods before what nature intended, their birth. Often abortion is presented in quite a different light, the cleansing of society from possible undesirable, unwanted and inconvenient members.
I suggest that the natural function of the human reproductive system, the introduction of new members into our human society, is more conducive to the common good than if it were impeded by self-centered judgment of the individual.
Legalized abortion has become an institution contradictory to the natures of two essential, social professions, namely, the legal and the medical. Courts, exemplified by Roe v. Wade, have taken to themselves the prerogative of redefining truth and justice, both of which pertain to our nature as human beings, and which we, intuitively, accept as objective, unchangeable realities. The medical profession, which is nature’s assistant for healing, have been invited, through legalized abortion, to wield their scalpels and their poisons against the most defenseless and most innocent members of our human society. Contrary to the nature of their profession, some doctors have accepted the invitation.
Further food for thought may be found in the history of other dehumanizing procedures following in the wake of Roe v. Wade, other deliberate attacks upon the human rights and dignity of the unborn child. Among these could be listed attempts at human cloning and embryonic stem cell research. In a less sophisticated area of human activity, the incidence of child abuse (of the already born child) should be included as a consequence of legalized abortion, which has been rightly called “the ultimate in child abuse.”
And what should be said of our place in history: “Legalized abortion turned one segment of human society against another, parent against unborn child, both victims of a degenerated sense of values.” It will be interesting to see where discerning historians will place the blame. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Reprinted from displayed responses May 30, 2006:
Question: In a recent posting, you said that abortion is not natural. Do you get that from the ratio of those who abort and those who don’t?
Reply: Nature, as a measure of reality, goes deeper than the mathematical analysis of what people do. Nature is an expression of what people are. In this sense, abortion contradicts the definition of the human being. It is in the nature of parents, even among the lesser animals and, especially among humans, to nurture their offspring. Abortion is in direct opposition to this dictate of nature, regardless of how many abort, or don’t abort, their offspring at any moment in human history.
To touch the extensive significance of nature, consider nature as the measure of reality. The term “measure” is used here as the identity or meaning or definition of a thing, the true knowledge of what the thing is. (To possess true knowledge, is to know things as they are.)
It is within our everyday experience to affirm that some material things are natural and some material things are artificial. A natural, material thing is always an integrated whole, both in structure and function, such as an organism, an atom and a molecule. A natural thing is characterized by its one-ness of being. An artificial material thing is an aggregate of natural things each of which has its own being and its own nature. An electric motor, for example, has an iron frame, copper wire, and some have carbon brushes.
Natural things are so called because they have natures. The nature of the thing is the source of its integrity and of its being a unique kind of thing. We speak of the nature of gold, or the nature of an amoeba. And we speak of human nature. The word “nature” comes to us from the Latin natus sum, the past participle of the verb “to be born.” The concept expressed by the word “nature” connotes the completeness of the thing, in its having a specific purpose and capability of attaining that purpose. When the term “nature” was coined, it was attributed only to living things, called “organisms” to emphasize their integrated completeness. Later, certain non-living things, the elements and compounds, were seen to be “things of nature,” as distinguished from artificial things.
A “completely packaged” thing, such as an organism, is said to have a nature, the source of its organization and the cause of its being the kind of thing that it is. Human beings are individual persons, but all have the same nature, namely, human nature.
It is necessary here to note that nature is not limited to material things, as generally implied in the expression “world of nature.” It is natural for a human being to think and, therefore, thoughts are realities and are natural. Nature, itself, is a reality, a source of unique being and of acting, as we see in our human nature.
This raises the problem of tracing the source of the natures which “things of nature,” or natural things, possess. Here we must not be content to say that their natures have been passed on to them by their progenitors. A clue to this quest is found in the integration of all things having natures, namely, “the world of nature.” The fitness of any part into “the world of nature” leads us to a completeness of the whole. Nature, then, is an over-all, organizing principle not only of individual things, but also of all reality resident within “the world of nature.” It is interesting that nature has been personified under the title “Mother Nature.”
The word “reality” is taken from the Latin: res, realis, which means “a thing.” Reality encompasses any individual thing and it encompasses all things. The essential connotations of reality are specificity and existence. Reality is sometimes extended to mean “things as they are.” A companion term “realism,” is used in Philosophy to say that universals have objectivity, as opposed to nominalism, and that material objects exist in themselves, as opposed to idealism. “Reality” is also used to express actualized potentialities, to distinguish between the existence of something and the mere capability of existing, such as the redness of a green apple before it ripens and becomes red.
One of Webster’s definitions of reality: is: “fidelity to nature.” This may correspond to the title of our discussion: Abortion, in light of Nature as the Measure of Reality. The word “measure” is used here as the identity or meaning or definition of a thing, the true knowledge of what the thing is. (To possess true knowledge is to know things as they are.)
Questions: Are thoughts always faithful to nature? Could an expressed thought be judged true or false by its conformity or lack of conformity to nature?
Question: Actions could conform to nature, or could lack that conformity. What is the practical advantage in using nature as a criterion, or measure, of truth and error, of good and evil?
Questions: Is nature the measure of reality? In the physical sciences, is there any criterion beyond nature? (Laws of Nature) In the part of Philosophy called Ethics, is there any criterion of human behavior beyond nature? (Natural Law)
Proposal: Just as the architect’s blueprint is the measure of the completed structure, so is nature the measure of reality. If reality were limited to things having natures, and if those natures are a participation in “the world of nature,” the question should be answered in the affirmative. If artificial things are included in reality, as they should be, nature would still have a role in their measurement, for three reasons: they are composed of natural things; they interact with natural things; they are brought into existence by natural agencies.
In testing this proposal, consider this question: Would ground glass and nitric acid be a suitable substitute for breakfast cereal and orange juice? The negative answer would be upheld by noting the incompatibility between the proposed diet and the ingesting organism. What necessitates this negative answer? Is it not the nature of things!
It should be noted that artificial things are not always “man-made,” but also occur in the normal workings of nature. A geode could serve as an example, a composite of stone, an amorphous substance, and of something else, a crystalline substance. It might be asked why these substances interacted without becoming one substance, as sodium and chlorine would have become under the same circumstances.
It might be concluded that some things act and react in predictable manners, because of their natures. This conclusion is an axiom of the physical sciences, not only of Biology and Chemistry, but also of Physics. In the first two sciences, the qualitative characteristics of things pertain to nature, with respect to their unique manner of being. In the latter, qualitative characteristics pertain also, but in different way, namely in their action, rather than in their being. (Qualities, in Physics, may be expressed in quantitative terms, as when a piece of iron is more or less magnetized, still retaining its nature as iron.) The kinetic theory underlying physical qualities, such as temperature, pressure and volume, could relate equally to vaporized substances having different natures, if allowance were made for incidental factors, such as the presence or absence of electrical charges on the vapor particles.
Question: What would be the hurtful consequences of neglecting nature in our attempt to understand reality and to manipulate the things of nature?
Question: What would be the consequences of denying nature, in terms of technology and social order?
Question: What are some of the possible consequences of discarding the natural and embracing man-made substitutes in technology and in the social order?
Proposal: There are some persons who assert that nature and the “things of nature” as we know them today, are the mid-product of an ever-changing reality. Other persons hold that nature is the changeless design imposed upon reality by an Intelligent Creator, to safeguard its beneficial operation. Some persons strive to reconcile both of these positions, to show reality as a harmonious system, where there is room for change, man-made or natural, within the system, so long as the changes are not contradictory to the system.
With the above guidelines in place, it should not be too difficult to understand that legalized abortion is contrary to nature and that hurtful consequences will follow in its path. In the physical order of reality, there is evidence showing an incidence of breast cancer accompanying abortion. In the area of the psychological, “post-abortion syndrome,” the problems of guilt and remorse, are frequently encountered as a result of abortion. These, and similar consequences, might well be the voice of nature asking for the discontinuation of legalized abortion. Are we wise enough to heed the warning! E.R
____________________
Editor’s Note: Through the recent Supreme Court decision, Gonzales v. Carhart, the U.S. Justice Department has vindicated the federal legislature’s enactment of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. The Court decided that the liberty factor pertinent to the victim of abortion should be equated with the liberty factor of the mother. The Court decided, simply, that the federal law does not conflict with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Court ruling that, supposedly, governs all cases of legalized abortion throughout the U.S. The historic contribution of Gonzales is likely to be its challenge to that supposition.
Serious questions are being raised about Roe and its competence to govern abortion. The Court itself, in its 1992 deliberations pertinent to Casey, considered the reversal of Roe. The proposal was defeated by the narrow margin of five to four. The Court’s reasons for supporting Roe at that time, instead of overturning it, indicate the inability of Roe to “stand on its own feet.” The Court said that, because women had become accustomed to having abortion as part of their lifestyle, the Court should not deprive them of it. And, if the Court were to reverse Roe, the country would lose confidence in its justice system, a risk that they could not take.
On this web site, we have frequently raised questions about the Supreme Court, in reference to Roe:
In their expressed ignorance about the beginning of a human being’s life, how does the Court, in face of acting while in doubt, justify their sanction of killing what might be human beings? A basic principle of Ethics is involved here.
Why did the Court disregard the universal presumption that what a pregnant woman is carrying is a human being? And why did they invert the presumption to demand a need to prove the humanity of the unborn?
Is it within the competence of the Court to define who is, or what is not, a human being?
Does the Court’s definition of the unborn as being “not a person in the full sense” validate the government’s protection of a mother’s choice of killing the resident of her womb?
Why did the Court make no allowance for the natural right of a father to fulfill his natural obligation of protecting the life of his offspring?
Is it acceptable for the Court to define the offspring of human parentage as “a potential human being,” since this phrase is a contradiction of terms? A specific potentiality can exist only in a subject already constituted in that species. To be a “potential human being,” the subject would have to be a human being, which would necessitate the potential and the actual to exist simultaneously, which is not logically possible.
We respectfully suggest that it is time for Roe v. Wade to be bought up for review, in the cold light of Ethics and Logic. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor’s Note: Currently, in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, an interesting case is under way. A law, recently enacted by South Dakota, is being challenged by Planned Parenthood on behalf of doctors performing abortions in that state. Among other stipulations of the law, the doctor is obliged, before the abortion, to inform the mother that abortion terminates “a whole, separate, unique, living human being.” The plaintiff charges that this obligation infringes on doctors’ First Amendment free speech rights. Link: Court ponders if abortion kills a human
Although free speech seems to be the only issue here, the content of the obliged statement could open other questions pertinent to that issue, such as whether the stipulated statement is true or false. Certainly no person can be legally forced to make a false statement. If such a connection could be established, then the vulnerability of Roe v. Wade could be exploited by demanding the Court realistically to address that question. Did the Roe court satisfactorily decide that abortion does, or does not, end a human being’s life?
If the stipulated statement were to be proved to be false, the abortionist could not be forced to transmit it to the woman. If, however, the statement should be proved to be true, there are some grounds upon which the state could demand that the doctor transmit the statement to the woman, as a condition of his or her license to practice within the state. The state; of course, would have to demonstrate a reasonable basis for the requirement.
Among such reasons is the obligation to inform the mother of possible “side-effects” resulting from her not fully informed consent, such as the shock of discovering, later, that what she had aborted was a human being, her own child.
The thinking in this case must be focused on the stipulated message: Every abortion ends the life of a human being. In practice, Roe v. Wade, in conjunction with Doe v. Bolton, is interpreted as sanctioning abortion, on demand, until the moment of natural birth, by using the ambiguous “health” exception. It should follow, then, that the entire span of a pregnancy must be included as pertinent to the statement, that is, that abortion during any stage of pregnancy kills a human being.
Our position on this web site is in agreement with that of the South Dakota Legislature, in holding for the humanity of the unborn from the time of conception (fertilization.). However, for those who may not agree with our position, we ask them to consider whether at some stage, between conception and natural birth, the unborn must be identified as a human being. If so, then, at that time, abortion would kill a human being.
We would not suggest that the questioned statement be changed to cover only some abortions and not all abortions. We are suggesting, rather, that there is a physical basis for informing women that abortion does kill some human beings. However, at this point we must interject an ethical basis to include all abortions as causing the deaths of human beings. This ethical basis, of course, should be clearly stated as a rational guide, to assist parents who have doubts concerning their unborn babies’ humanity.
No one, including the U.S. Supreme Court, has ever proved that the unborn of human parentage is not a human being from the time of conception (fertilization.) The ethical principle here protects all such unborn since, in the case of doubt wherein substantial harm may follow, action is prohibited so that the good may be preserved. In other words:
In case of doubt, where certainty is lacking, the ethical presumption must favor the humanity of the unborn. A familiar example of this ethical principle is the case of an eager hunter, spotting some moving branches, who may not shoot while he is doubtful whether it is a deer or a fellow hunter behind the moving branches.
Simply put, if there is doubt concerning the humanity of the unborn, the benefit of the doubt must favor the unborn, to avoid the possibility of killing a fellow human being. Neither individuals nor governments are ethically free to disregard this fundamental principle of commonsense.
From this brief analysis, it is reasonable that South Dakota, in pursuit of its obligation to provide assurance of completely informed consent for women seeking abortion in their state, to impose the stipulated clause in their legal regulation of abortion. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor’s Note: This is the fourth, consecutive posting on the good of the individual with reference to the good of the society. We indicate that legalized abortion is in opposition with both the individual good and the common good.
Terrorism opposes the common good because it is not a “fair” method of communication. Human beings have a right to be treated fairly, which begins with honesty and openness with one another, whether as individuals or as nations. In this context terrorism is unnatural behavior, not fitting to human dignity.
If a nation were to “legitimize” terrorism, by a decree of its highest court, only on one day each year, that nation is in opposition to the common good, just as much as if it had “granted” an unlimited “right” to terrorism. That is because even one sanctioned exception against the rule of nature destroys nature as the universal criterion of acceptable behavior, which is the sum and substance of the common good. Nations that legalize abortion separate themselves from that which is common to the rest of humanity, namely, respect for human life.
Fragmenting the common good by making legal exceptions to the common good deprives the human society of its only basis for mutually satisfactory interaction. The International Olympics could be cited as an example of the need for uniformly crafted rules that are conformable with the nature of human beings. If one nation fails to conform to the rules, it must be excluded from the community of participants, so as to preserve the good of all, namely that which holds them all together in their common endeavor. The failed nation must have the common good as an objective for realigning itself with the rest of the society, should it wish to do so.
That the common good must be preserved, in order for the community of human beings to survive, should be self-evident. Yet, the common good is being fragmented more rapidly than it can be restored. How long, then, before the society will be without a guide to keep it on its course? If the society is to live and work together, the yardstick for measuring behavior must be the same for all. Different yardsticks lead to conflicts that cannot be resolved.
Mexico City and Mexico are, currently, considering the legalization of abortion. Their publicized reason is to prevent the dangers of unsanitary, illegal abortions. It would be logical here to ask why the health and well-being of pregnant women aren’t being maintained by improving conditions for pregnancy and childbirth, as suggested by the common good, rather than by killing their unborn children by abortion? It must be concluded that sanitization is not the prime desirable of legalized abortion but, rather, it is the abortion that is being sought.
It would be profitable here to question the “right” that a government takes upon itself in legalizing abortion. It is interesting to note that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, of 1973, vests that so-called “right” upon the pregnant woman. She is the sole possessor of that “right.” It is she who makes the choice. The Court merely protects her freedom to choose. But does this leave the Court free of responsibility for the consequences of her choice? For the majority of human beings, parents killing their offspring is seen as something unnatural, and they would ethically condemn the Court for providing the necessary means of her choosing. E.R.
____________________
Editorial Note: This posting may be added to the preceeding postings, about the common good and about common decency, with reference to legalized abortion.
To legalize abortion is to strike a fatal blow at the common good. That is because the common good encompasses every member of the human race, whereas abortion excludes those waiting to be born. Agencies that are, supposedly, custodians of the common good, who promote, or even tolerate, abortion are doubly guilty of destroying the common bond of decency that relates the members of human society.
Among such agencies, at the international level, are the United Nations and the European Union, who pressure member, and perspective member, nations to “update reproductive rights” by legalizing abortion. At a more local level, individual nations that legalize abortion, such as Portugal, which succumbed as recently as last month, and Mexico, now toying with the means of their own extinction, are destroyers of the common good. In the United States, the fatal blow was dealt by “judicial fiat,” in 1973, by its Supreme Court.
There is a faulty understanding that is breaking down the common good, the assumption that the common good is attained by seeking the “good of the many,” rather than the good of all. In the case of legalized abortion, the good of “already-born women” is made to outweigh the good of human females who are waiting to be born.
What is involved here is the failure to see that every individual human being is valued at the same level of goodness as every other human being. In this very real sense, even a multitude of human beings’ good does not outweigh the goodness of any one of them. This reality is celebrated in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, where it is proclaimed: “All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.”
The good of the human individual is non-negotiable, not only for “others,” but also for the individual possessor of that good. The prohibition against suicide is an example. This goodness, sometimes called human dignity, is the basis of human rights, such as the right to life. Legalized abortion is an infringement of the right to life and, therefore an attack upon the common good.
In this simplified form of the argument, the viewer might feel that too much of “the real stuff” is being left out of the statement. Don’t pregnant women also have rights? What about rape and incest? Or, a deformed child, in the womb! Practical solutions can be worked out to handle these problems, but never at the cost of forfeiting an innocent human being’s life for the sake of another.
The destruction and restoration of social order can occur gradually and by way of reaction, as expressed in “the swing of the pendulum.” Degradation of social order can be promoted also by forces that are outside of the normal, human propensity for change. Often the pursuit of ones own advantage must be paid for by another’s disadvantage, sometimes by the negation of the other’s non-negotiable good. Such practices, in the course of time, might become legalized, and the culture changed, away from the common good. Legalizing definitions of marriage and family that are contradictory to the time-honored, natural concepts of these institutions, could serve as an example.
At this point of this discussion, one might ask whether the common good is ever under direct attack, as when someone denies any obligation to respect the common good. Since the common good is an essential characteristic of our human nature, that denial is also a denial of nature. Without nature, there would be no guidance, and no standard of evaluation, for the behavior of individuals or of their social groupings.
Indirect attacks against the common good are in ample evidence, as in the case of unreasonably legalized protection for the dissemination of pornography. Legalized abortion, with its focus on the woman, disregarding the rights of the child and of the child’s father and the rights of human society, is the prime example. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Reprinted from displayed responses March 9, 2006:
Editor’s Note: The word “decency” signifies the appropriateness of human behavior, insofar as it is fitting to the circumstances surrounding it. Wearing beach clothing at a church wedding would not be decent behavior. Even the fast food establishments have clothing codes, though in our time, it is felt necessary to post them at the door of the place. The time-honored, unwritten code of men’s respect for women could be cited as an excellent example of decency. In fact, it is a good example of “common decency.”
Common decency is an unwritten, humanly instinctive code, shared by all human beings, affirming that certain behavior is acceptable or non-acceptable by the society of fellow human beings. Common decency is recognition of the unique dignity vested in the human being and in the society. Decent behavior, then, is measured as being commensurate with that dignity. Indecency is behavior incompatible with human dignity. In fact, it is an offence against human dignity, in the same sense that obscenity infringes upon the decent sensibilities of the human person.
Decency presupposes some sort of a standard, grasped intuitively by every human being, in proportion to age of development. Decency is part of the moral sense that distinguishes human beings from the lesser animals. This sense of what is fitting to human behavior flows from our human nature, which has been a reliable source of proper conduct, from the beginning of human history. Nature, then, is the “yardstick” for determining what is decent or indecent in human behavior. Although some refinements of etiquette and good manners have been added from time to time, it is not the arbitrary choice of human individuals but, rather, it is our unvarying human nature that is the promoter of common decency. To show how natural good manners are, someone has said that every once in a while you will meet a person who, if manners had not been invented, would have invented them.
As humans, we have contact with the “yardstick” through our faculty of intellect. In all matters essential to our well being, as individuals and as a society, we can distinguish between what is right and what is wrong, between what is fitting and what is not. Clarity of vision, of course, can be obscured by neglect of practice, by undisciplined emotion and by weakness of will power. However, if our natural endowments are in place, we can trust our capability of seeing the original design and its requirement of compliance with its simple, commonsense directives.
One fundamental demand of common decency is respect for persons, respect for our selves and respect for other human beings. Decency is a factor in recognizing the individual autonomy of the human being, that the individual is his or her own person, and not the instrument of another. Common decency demands honesty in dealing with one another, since society could not function without the presumption of honesty even for strangers. This presumption is nothing other than respect for our fellow human beings.
Although the human individual’s right to life can be deduced by a process of reasoning, it should be noted, again, that there is also an intuitive awareness of that right, and of our obligation to respect it. How, then, can legalized abortion be explained? Does decency no longer have a place in our modern culture! It is interesting that a simple test might be sufficient for answering this question. Being ‘tuned in” to common decency has a counterpart, called shame. If shame is either absent or depreciated in a culture, it is a culture lacking in decency.
I would suggest that attention to our moral sense is being neglected and, in extreme cases, its authenticity is being denied, at least in practice. That would be because nature itself is being discarded from “the world of nature.” It is unnatural for human parents to kill their offspring, yet this indecency has been given legal sanction. The unborn can no longer trust their parents or their government. Is this not a gross indignity? The situation is a prime example of indecency!
What other “yardstick” of human conduct will take the place of nature? Will the technologists replace it with a better one? It is extremely presumptuous to assume that they can.
The reality of nature, however, lingers on, in its own sanctions. One of these, with reference to abortion, is post-abortion syndrome. Those who have discarded nature from our culture have not protected us from its sanctions. Perhaps we should be grateful for that, so as not to become too far separated from the design that made us to be part of a world of nature, in the event that we should ever wish to return to what is decent. Or is it already too late for that?
To assist the viewer with this question, I suggest a consideration of the most natural aspects of our human society, such as gender differences, marriage and family. Our present society is rebelling against any and all efforts to replace them with man-made substitutes. This is an example of nature speaking for itself. This is my evidence that there is still hope for decency in our culture. But, I further suggest that it will not come easily. And it must be a shared responsibility for all. E.R reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor’s Note: As a follow-up on the previous posting, we present a few more thoughts on the relationship between the individual good and the common good, with reference to legalized abortion, embryonic stem cell harvesting and Eugenics. In the previous posting, the individual good was represented by the human family, as the natural unit of human society. In this posting, the individual good is represented by the individual human being. The common good, of course, is the good of everyone, as incorporated together in the community of all human beings.
It is presumed here that the right to life is a good, for every human individual. It is also presumed that there is no incompatibility between this individual good and the common good. (Justified capital punishment, self-defense and justified warfare are not exceptions to this presumption. They fall within its implementation.)
Legalized abortion, embryonic stem cell harvesting and eugenics have one thing in common, namely, an unfair unbalance of preference for the many over the few. In the case of legalized abortion the will of the government overrides the unborn individual’s right to life. In embryonic stem cell harvesting and in the practice of eugenics, the descendents of the present generation are the supposed beneficiaries of the deprivation of the present individuals’ right to life.
Hitler’s eugenics program is being reduplicated in our time by governments that speculate on future social advantage at the cost of “less than perfect,” unborn human beings. Fortunately, advocacy groups of various “disadvantaged” members of our human society have arisen to defend the similarly situated, unborn individual’s right to life. Such defense, of course, is the natural obligation of all the society.
It would be reasonable to assume that political socialism arose as a protection against injustices perpetrated by individuals. However, because of the human being’s social nature, this presumption should not preclude a natural “group interest” in every area of human interaction. It should go without saying that justice must govern those interactions. The ruling group must not take unfair advantage of the individual, but should allocate burdens and rewards without partiality. And the individual must conform to the legitimate needs of the group, always, however, respecting his or her rights as a human individual.
In Portugal’s current dispute over the further legalization of abortion, it is evident that the socialist administration of that country is intent on imposing, by legislative action, a further weakening of restrictions against abortion. This intended action is in opposition to the long-standing pro-life culture of that nation. An inconclusive referendum was interpreted by the government in such a way as to favor its own socialistic intentions. The United States is another example of a government, in this case through its 1973 Supreme Court, of “legislating” approval of abortion.
The question that presents itself here is whether any group of humans can justify their taking action against the life of an innocent, fellow human being, whether by referendum, legislative enactment or judicial fiat, or by groups, such as the United Nations or the European Union. Is it, perhaps that the common good has been usurped by groups of individuals who profess to having nothing good in common with the rest of humanity? E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
At the ground level of the discussion over legalized abortion, there are two end-points of social reality, the good of the individual and the common good. Rooted in each end-point are certain natural rights, based on human, natural obligations. These rights and obligations are innate, and not arbitrarily established by the members of our human society.
Although “individual” usually refers to a single person, in this discussion the good of the individual is a human family, since the family is the basic, natural unit of the society. The common good is the totality of our human society. The term “good” is used here to signify the value of something, in terms of its place in the natural functioning of the whole society. The “good” is a value to be preserved if the society is to endure.
A current, extreme example of a disordered relationship between the end-points of social reality is the practice of embryonic stem cell research. It uses embryonic humans for the supposed benefit of other members of the society. Besides the injustice of depriving a human individual of his or her life, embryonic stem cell research deprives the family of that wholeness which constitutes its “good.” Human reproduction and its natural consequence, the child, pertain to the integrity of the family, and not to the use of the society.
Legalized abortion infringes upon the good of the family, by approving, and even encouraging, the deliberate destruction of a family member by a parent of that family. It should be obvious here that the common good is also forfeited by the legalizing of abortion. By legalizing abortion the society diminishes itself, not only quantitatively but also in moral and social value. Along with the forfeiture of human talents that would have enhanced our social status, abortion depreciates our economic potential. In failing to preserve the natural integrity of the end-points of social interaction, the society promotes confusion, conflict and, eventually, self-destruction.
It should be a concern for all of us that certain organizations, such as the United Nations and the European Union, proposing to represent the common good, are attempting to impose legalized abortion on prospective member nations. This is a direct attack by a representative of one of the end-points of acceptable social interaction unwittingly, perhaps, destroying the other.
It is encouraging, on the other hand, to see that several states and the federal government of the United States, along with other nations around the world, are using tax monies to forestall abortions, through generous support of Crisis Pregnancy Centers. In their commonsense wisdom they see that legalized abortion is destructive of both the family and the nation.
The point of emphasis here is the necessity of preserving the family unit, as specified by nature, in order to preserve the society. This simplified vision of social reality imposes restraint and conscientious effort on the part of both, the family and the society. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor’s Note: The U.S. Supreme Court is in the process of hearing an appeal of the U.S. Justice Department to uphold the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, enacted into law, two years ago. It is our position that insufficient attention is given to the humanity of the victim of partial-birth abortion, despite the visible evidence of his or her being a human baby. Further, we suggest that the Court has an obligation to restudy the question of the beginning of a human being’s life. Their study, in 1973, was not adequate in light of what is now known about the beginning of a human’s life. At this web site, we see no point of beginning other than the moment of conception, the union of two parental reproductive cells. We invite our viewers to examine our reasons, as indicated in the Table of Contents.
May we invite you to examine this question: Even if you were unsure of when human life begins, could you watch a partial-birth abortion and be certain that a human being is not being killed by the procedure? You would see the abortionist manipulate a living body, within a pregnant woman’s uterus, so as to bring about a “feet-first” presentation through her birth canal and outward from her body, stopping short of totally exposing the head, face down, of what your gut-feeling tells you is a human baby. Then you would see the abortionist deliberately plunge a scissors like instrument into the neck, aimed at the brain within that only partially hidden head. Then you would see the input tube of a suction machine inserted into the head, removing the brains, collapsing the skull and, finally, you would see the complete separation of the dead body from the mother.
Even if that bloodied body had not squirmed and protested the grip of the abortionist’s forceps, prior to the death-dealing blow, you could not have been sure that it was not a living, human baby. You would know that if it were not a living, human baby, this procedure would not be taking place in an abortion chamber. Abortionists are not in business to mangle dead or non-human bodies.
You are not alone in your emotional and ethical revulsion against partial-birth abortion. Three times, the U.S. federal legislature, representing the people of the nation, banned it. Many proponents of abortion rebelled against it, simply as barbaric. The medical profession declared it to be a totally unnecessary procedure and some speak of it as infanticide. The basic issue, of course, is it the killing of a human baby?
If it is the killing of a human baby, why are there no policeman storming the abortion chamber, ready to arrest the abortionist? Has Roe v. Wade excluded the killing of a baby from the traditional list of crimes? If so, Roe must go, as not being compatible with civilization!
The present Supreme Court must examine its suspect legacy of Roe v. Wade, to evaluate the competence of the Roe Court to have questioned the time-honored assumption that pregnant women are carrying human babies. And, in their professed ignorance concerning the beginning of the human individual’s life, that Court’s sanction of a woman’s decision to dispose of her unborn child should be condemned. It is a violation
of the simple ethical principle that action may not be undertaken in the face of doubt concerning hurtful consequences of the action. Commonsense thinking on the part of our present Court could eliminate the debate over partial-birth abortion, and all other abortions also. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor's Note ('07) While we await the Supreme Court's continuation of its hearing, the subject of partial-birth abortion should be of interest to U.S. citizens, and all other members of our human society. The Court is currently deliberating on an appeal of the U.S. Justice Department in defense of the partial-birth abortion ban enacted into law, two years ago, by the federal legislature.
Reprinted from displayed responses June 18, 2003:
Editor's Note('03): For the third time in as many years, the U.S. legislature has enacted a ban against partial-birth abortion. In the two previous instances, the enactments were vetoed by President Clinton. This third enactment is about to be signed into law by President Bush. We are asking for a comment on how the new law is likely to be received by the people of the nation.
Comment: From the above-mentioned history, it is evident that the majority of the people have expressed, through their elected legislators, a rejection of partial-birth abortion. This has been done with Roe v. Wade fully visible in the background.
Although many persons, otherwise inclined toward the legality of abortion, agree with the ban, there will be some who will violently oppose it. They have expressed their intention of seeking an injunction against its implementation. I will attempt to interpret their opposition and its consequences.
They claim that partial-birth abortion is used only rarely and only in cases of serious malformations of the baby or in cases of grave risk to the mother's life. All of these claims have been proved to be false. The facts, figures and sources of information were available to the legislators during their deliberations and will be adequately presented to the Appeals Court, should the injunction be granted.
Faced by the new law, it is possible that the abortion-minded, whether on the Court or outside of it, might attempt some new strategy to avoid embarrassment to Roe v. Wade. They might concede to the gut-feeling of many Americans that what is being spoken of here is not abortion but, rather, infanticide. As soon as "partial-birth abortion" would no longer be called abortion, there will be no felt need on the part of the abortion-minded to defend it. Then "Roe" would remain safe in its total command over the destiny of unborn babies in this nation. Or would this "Legislature v. Court" action raise enough eyebrows to demand an immediate and honest examination of Roe v. Wade?
Further speculation on effects of the partial-birth law should allow for a possible change its legal environment, which came into play on June 17, 2003. Roe v. Wade has been challenged by its plaintiff, the "Jane Roe" of that case, Ms. Norma McCorvey. She has filed a petition in federal court to open the case and to reverse its decision. Seen in light of her charges, the American public might well become sympathetic to her objective of obtaining justice for the women of our nation and for their unborn babies. It follows, too, that if "Roe" were to be removed from the scene, the partial-birth abortion ban would no longer be necessary.
Ms. McCorvey's petition points to changes in factual conditions and changes in law that make the prior decision no longer just in its present application. She cites physical and emotional hurt to abortive women, something unknown or neglected by the Court. She indicates the wealth of new, scientific evidence for the beginning of human life at conception, whereas the Court had professed only ignorance on this key item of their 1973 deliberations. She shows that there is no excuse now for abortions in Texas because of its Baby Moses law, whereby the state is pledged to accept unwanted children, from infancy to the 18th year, with no questions asked, and care for them.
In closing this comment, may I suggest that you viewers, and all other citizens of this earth, think carefully and compassionately on the vast social harm we have introduced into our world by having legalized abortion. Perhaps it is not too late to begin reversing this sad chapter in our individual and global existence. Let us sincerely applaud those nations among us who have resisted the temptation to betray their unborn offspring, and let us beg the continuance of their good example. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor's Note (1/12//07) Because of current deliberations in the U.S. Legislature on the funding of embryonic stem cell experimentation we present this review of the Biology and Ethics pertinent to embryonic stem cells. Our point of emphasis is why they should not be used: Biology explains why embryonic stem cells do not function when transplanted into mature tissue. Ethics explains why embryonic humans should not be killed, even for the supposed benefit of other human beings. Commonsense explains why adult stems cells, from various organs of the adult body, or from umbilical cords or from amniotic fluid, or hair follicles, and so forth, should be used by the healing profession, since they function well in adult tissue, to replace and repair injured tissue, without injury to the donor. Adult stem cell experimentation should be funded by the government, for the common good of the people. Here are a couple of current articles on cells from amniotic fluid: Science & Technology at Scientific American.com: New Source of Stem Cells: Amniotic Fluid Amniotic Fluid Is Excellent Source Of Stem Cells (from MedicalNewsToday.com).
1-12-07 Reprinted from September 30, 2004:
Editor’s Note: Because of considerable confusion on the ethics of stem-cell research, we offer a brief review of this important subject. Stem cells are minimally differentiated cells that have the capability, in a suitable environment, of dividing into various kinds of cells, as needed by the organism that possesses them. From the one-celled stage (zygote) of a human being there will arise three basic tissues of cells (ectoderm, mesoderm and endoderm.) Each of these tissues contains some stem cells from which will arise the more highly specialized cells needed to produce all the structures (organs) of the completed body. Further, each of the structures, after completion, will contain some stem cells, to be developed for replacement and repair of the tissues in that structure. These are found throughout the individual’s lifetime. These are called “adult stem-cells.”
In the first few hours of the human individual’s life, a stem cell in the process of division is capable of producing daughter cells different from itself. (differentiation) This occurs naturally in its proper environment, that is, in the embryo (early stage of fetal development.) These are called “embryonic stem cells.”
A researcher might presume that embryonic stem cells could be inserted into adult tissue to produce specialized cells for replacement and repair of that adult tissue. This presumption presents two serious problems. First, extracting stem cells from a living embryo brings about the death of that embryonic human individual. It is ethically unacceptable to kill one human being for the benefit of another, or even countless others. The second problem rises in the failure to conform to the design of cell division and cell differentiation as it occurs in the animal organism. The researcher must not overlook the precise purposiveness of nature.
As indicated above, embryonic stem cells perform well in the embryo. They do not perform well in adult tissue. That is because both cell division and cell differentiation are orchestrated by the needs of the organism. The organism directs the cell by means of the content of the lymph (blood plasma) that surrounds the cell and by its timely programming that demands a specific response. The cell’s response is a reaction to factors of its immediate environment. The environment in which embryonic stem cells can act naturally is not found in adult tissue. There is more than a mere “generation gap” here. The adult environment lacks not only suitable content to stimulate the embryonic stem cell, but it also lacks the suitable timing for its proper response.
Many experiments using stem cells from the human embryo have been undertaken in the attempt to cure disabilities of various kinds in adult, human patients. There has been no success reported. On the other hand, adult stem cells employed for the cure of adult disabilities has a good record of success. The ethical problem here is quite clear: Research with human, embryonic stem cells is additionally improper because it deceives by its propaganda patients who are suffering disabilities, who might otherwise find relief in the use of adult stem cells. The moral imperative is simple: Human, fetal stem cell research, whether by government or by private companies, violates ethical principles of serious significance and destroys the moral integrity of its practitioners. Research with adult stem cells, on the other hand, should be encouraged. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
1-12-07 Reprinted from September 27, 2006:
Question: I am confused about stem cells. I would appreciate knowing why there are contradictory claims favoring one kind over another.
Reply: The name "stem" has been given to a cell from which a line of differentiated cells can be started. Its name, by analogy, is taken from the trunk, or branch, with reference to that which grows outward from the trunk or branch, such as leaves, flowers and fruit. In this discussion let us use the relationship of stem and flower, the flower being that which grows out of the stem. The stem seems to give rise to a diversity of structures, principally reproductive, in the flower. The relationship of stem to flower indicates that the flower, in some away, is present in the stem, even before it makes its appearance outside of the stem.
This, of course, is a simplification of a complex process of structure and function, attributable not to the stem, but to the entire plant of which the stem is only a part. The concept helps us to understand that some of the cells which are part of the stem will divide, not to increase the size of the stem, but to produce new cells, different from themselves. This is called differentiation. These new cells, in their turn, also differentiate as they divide, eventually producing cells which are petal cells, pollen and ova, or cells of pollen tubes and of other structures which form the flower.
I speak of my definition and example as a simplification because they do not explain how some cells constitute the stem and others, seemingly of the same kind, go on to produce the flower. It might help here to suggest some items for further thought: Cells come from cells. This raises the question of whether, in any given line of cells, the initial cell possessed everything which the end of the line possesses. The problem here is to have a sufficient cause to explain the effect, remembering that a thing cannot give what it hasn't got.
This production of flowers is but one example of how a cell can, in some manner, contain the "stuff" of cells more complicated than itself. The most radical example is seen in the single-celled stage (zygote) of any organism produced by sexual reproduction. It is both a stem-cell and an organism. During its very early development the cells which the organism produces have been designated as embryonic stem-cells, about which we center this present discussion.
In a very real sense, the zygote contains all of the "stuff" needed to bring itself to maturity. However, it proceeds toward maturity by producing, sequentially, the next round of cells, as required by its genetic information. In each succeeding "generation" of cells, the new cell will possess whatever is necessary for doing its own job and for equipping the next "generation" to do likewise. In this way the organism develops itself, through the production and proper use of its cells. The organism, of course, "fleshes-out" its original "stuff" by using the material of its environment, as needed, in its progress toward maturity.
It is important to note that the total process is not only under the control of the organism, directed by its genetic "blueprint," but that it is always influenced by the immediate environment in which the process occurs. Those environmental factors may be as simple as optimum temperature, adequate solvents for the reacting substances, electrical and magnetic, even gravitational, fields of force, along with the more complex factors, such as stimulus of neighboring cells, and the presence of compatible enzymes to act as catalysts for the chemical reactions.
The claim of capability to develop organs from embryonic stem-cells, such as heart, is even more unfounded. You may have seen a picture of muscle tissue "beating," but a functioning heart is more than its muscle.
If I may say, briefly, the living organism is not a machine, whose parts can be welded or bolted together, but rather a continuous whole whose "parts" are so interwoven, both in structure and in function, that none is independent of the others. The action of the "parts," whether cells or organs, is sequentially "programmed," so that what a cell can do in its embryonic environment, should not be expected from that cell when transplanted elsewhere. You must keep in mind that it is not the cell which is doing the acting. The actor is the organism which possesses, and function through, the cell. This might help you to understand why stem-cells of adult organisms are better than embryonic ones, when they are asked to serve mature tissues.
From our discussion, you can see that stem-cells are not limited to organisms in their embryonic stage of existence, called embryonic stem-cells. Even in your adult body there are stem-cells, just as in the flowering plant which may be several years of age. The red blood cells, active in your circulatory system, are the end product of a line of less-differentiated cells resident in the marrow of your bones. In older terminology the beginning of the line was called a "mast- cell." This example is not far different from that of the cells in the stem and flower of the plant.
Another source of adult stem-cells is body fat. It is also amazing that most organs of the body contain stem cells, which nature provides for regeneration and repair of their damaged tissues. Recent research shows that the "islands of Langerhans," cells scattered around in the pancreas (which produce insulin for metabolizing sugars) can be replaced by the action of pancreatic stem-cells, after the "destroyer" of those "islands" has been vanquished.
Although embryonic stem-cells have been thought to be superior to adult stem-cells for the purpose of "repair or replacement," there is not sufficient evidence to support the claim. In fact, embryonic stem-cells inserted into ailing, adult brain tissue have sometimes worsened the disability. Adult stem-cells, on the other hand, do show promise which is upheld by ample evidence. (See: displayed responses October 21, 2004)
In a previous Reply I have stated clearly that the use of human, embryonic stem-cells, even if they were of utility to others, would be unethical to "harvest," since that would involve killing the embryonic human who possesses them. This brief, overly-simplified glimpse into the biology of embryonic stem-cells adds a pragmatic reinforcement to that moral prohibition. Adult stem-cells, on the other hand, can be obtained without injury to the volunteer donor, and could be used ethically for research and healing. E.R reply@unbornperson.org
____________________