Fetal Life and Abortion: Human Personhood at Conception
____________________
Displayed Responses 2009
Displayed Responses 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2010
2009
October 28th: Legalized Abortion vs. Nature 101
September 3rd: Abortion is not Healthcare!
August 6th: Right and Wrong? Nature says: "Absolutely!"
July 6th: Students for life
June 11th: Personhood - What a difference a day makes!
May 8th: "Mine!"
April 21st: Natural Self-Ownership
April 9th: Rebuild Society Without Legalized Abortion
March 19th: UPDATE: WHY embryonic stem-cells will not work with adult tissue
February 18th: Abortion's unnatural - unreasonable - unethical nature
January 29th: Dear President Obama: When does human life begin?
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. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
It should go without saying that the most healthful thing for a pregnant woman to do is to deliver her child. That is what the reproductive system is all about! And is there not a health professional, the obstetrician, to encourage delivery! We might even say that the delivery of her child is the most natural thing a pregnant woman can do. Why, then, is abortion claimed to be pertinent to health care? Should not abortion, rather, be seen as an unhealthful thing, often the violent removal of a healthy baby from the body of a healthy woman, for the specific purpose of destroying the child. Is this not contrary to the very nature of things! Certainly, contrary to nature’s purpose of sustaining the human race, and giving dignity to parenthood!
Abortion does not make sense. It does not correct mistakes; it aggravates mistakes! Abortion does not free a woman from motherhood; she becomes a childless mother.
In a portion of our worldwide human culture, abortion has become “normal,” but never natural. Despite its proponents’ belief that abortion “helps” individuals, they have never demonstrated, despite its legalization, that abortion promotes the common good. Something so unnatural could never be in agreement with the common good, which has its roots in nature.
At the present time the economic crisis is a platform for arguing against including abortion in a health plan, at taxpayers’ expense. Fair enough! But, let us go deeper and uproot this suffocating growth that is turning our human culture away from the protective guidance of nature and leading us into the stagnant swamp of irresponsible choice!
You may read the following three, previous postings, to examine the logic of the position stated above:
1. Reprinted from displayed responses October 21, 2002:
Comment: The objection presupposes that there are "goods" greater in value than the life of the unborn offspring. This supposition can take two forms, by under-valuing the life of the offspring, or by over-valuing the apparent "good." Both of these approaches are faulty, because they attribute only a relative value to the offspring's life. The human being has an absolute value, as indicated in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal and have an inalienable right to life.
As for under-valuing the offspring, it should not be necessary to examine the claim of those who do not admit to the humanity of the offspring. Frozen embryos are protected by law, not only because they represent someone's "property," but because, when implanted, they continue to mature as do all other human beings and, so, should not have their humanity questioned. How much, more so, should embryos brought about by normal conception be recognized as human beings.
As for over-valuing the "goods" that are offered as justification for abortion, it should be noted that those "goods" usually "benefit" one, or both, of the parents, at the cost of the unborn offspring's life. In no instance can such "benefits" be equated with the right to life which is inherent in the human offspring. Even the mother's right to life does not exceed that of her offspring's. If anyone is confused on this point, I would suggest an examination of the phrase: "except to save the life of the mother." This exception is found in the laws of the individual states of the U.S. which were in force prior to 1973.
It should be observed carefully that this exception does not say that the offspring may be killed in order to save the mother's life. No innocent human being may be killed, even to save many lives. The exception covers difficult situations in which saving the mother's life will be the occasion of her offspring's death, as when a ruptured Fallopian tube containing an ectopic pregnancy must be removed from her body. There is no direct attack on the innocent life, even though the death can be foreseen. The surgical procedure is initiated as the only means of saving her life. At the moment of initiation, her offspring's life had not been in the process of being lost. The mother needed immediate help; her offspring did not. SEE the ethical principle "double-effect."
With these added elements of discussion in place, I invite students to continue thinking about legalized abortion as an example of a civil law in opposition to Ethics, which is sometimes called the science of reasonable behavior." I ask the students to keep in mind that this discussion is not merely academic; it pertains to the way things are. It is my feeling that the young people of the world deserve something better than the injustice and falsehood found at work in the society which they are about to inherit. I also feel that there will be no major ethical improvement in their generation, unless they, the students, are willing to bring it about. Fortunately there is a trend in that direction and, in that, there is hope. E.R.
2. Reprinted from displayed responses October 14, 2002:
Editor's Note: We wish to address students, world-wide, on the subject of legalizing practices which are hurtful to innocent human life and, therefore, morally evil. We will discuss what has already been legalized and that which is projected for the future. Abortion will be our first example. The purpose of our discussion is to alert students to the moral flaws of our society, whose future will soon be in their hands.
Elements of Discussion: Many years of teaching at various academic levels have given me a great respect for students who seek objective standards in their academic pursuits, and who also hold themselves to objective standards of human conduct. Most students with whom I have worked are of that moral fiber. On behalf of students such as these, I do not hesitate to affirm the distinction between good and evil; between right and wrong.
I would go further and affirm their acceptance of good and evil as objective realities and not merely as arbitrarily designated things to be done and things to be avoided, subject to change with social fancy. What is commended here is the unhampered human intelligence and the fully free exercise of choice: the intellect seeking and obtaining its proper object, that which is true, and the human will doing the same towards its proper object, that which is good.
To possess truth is to know things as they are. Being truthful demands objectivity. In contrast, knowledge which is colored by the individual, consciously or unwittingly, to suit his or her situation of the moment, is subjective fantasy and is not truthful. The same with choices and consequent actions; they can be good only insofar as their objects are objectively good.
As a definition of "good," it is sufficient to say that the design of our Creator is the measure of good. Any deliberate act which fits into that design is morally good. Any deliberate act contrary to that design is morally evil.
I suggest here that the object of an intended act may be good, such as giving financial help to a poor family, but that the act itself could be evil, as when the gift is stolen money.
It must be said now that the individual person, through human intelligence, after arriving at the age of reason, is able to distinguish right from wrong, commensurate with the person's age and experience.
Finally, it must be noted that the subjective elements of one's action influence the culpability of failure to measure up to the dictates of intellectual judgment, sometimes called "conscience." Uninvited obstacles to clear thinking and to freedom of choice are examples of such extenuating circumstances.
Looking at abortion objectively, that is, without prejudice, it would be seen as an unreasonable act, and one contrary to the pursuit of the good. Stated simply, it does not make sense for parents to kill their own offspring. Abortion is contrary to the tendency of nature, sometimes called the nurturing instinct. For humans, of course, there is more than instinct; there is a felt sense of obligation, called responsibility. Since abortion is contrary to nature it is, therefore, contrary to the design of nature's Author, constituting a moral evil.
Looking at abortion subjectively, as by abortion providers and, sometimes, by legislators and judges, abortion may appear as a "good," though only as "a necessity" or "a claim to compassion" or as "the lesser of two evils."
With the few elements of discussion mentioned above, I invite student viewers to comment on the legalization of abortion and its effects on the well-being of the nation which protects it by law. For students in the U.S. it would be helpful to review the Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, followed by our comments, in Section 9, and the comments of others, in Section 5. Students from other countries may wish to examine the foundation of their laws which approve of abortion. Together we may be able to awaken our common, human society to the unjust, absurd and damaging practice of legalizing abortion. E.R.
3. Reprinted from displayed responses July 8, 2001:
Question: In your posting of June 29th, you suggested that our present culture is not very well tuned to the promptings of our human nature. I'm wondering whether that might be due to the artificialities which have replaced much of our original human nature?
Reply: Many thanks for your perceptive question! I would help me if you had included some examples of the artificial modification of our humanity. If I were to guess at what you have in mind, I might generalize one area of mischief: the confusion of good and evil. Legalized abortion would provide us with an example.
My Reply to which you refer is linked to a small verse called "The Now Generation." I was suggesting that our full human nature might not be at work in us because we are not giving it an opportunity to function totally. Because of our preoccupation with our five external senses, whose objects rivet us to their material presence, we limit our time-awareness to the present moment. There is insufficient awareness of the past and, as a result, no practical awareness of the future. To whatever extent this appraisal is correct, we neglect the inner-senses of memory and imagination and, more seriously, the process of thought.
For this discussion, permit me to add a corresponding problem, with respect to the use of free-will and the consequent reality of responsibility. I would suggest here the questions: Are we always free to "do our own thing?" and are we not our "brother's keeper?"
Your question prompts an additional consideration, one which goes beyond human speculation. It is a faith-based insight to explain the lessened beneficial influence of our human nature. For those who believe that the first humans were gifted at creation with a level of life above their human nature, but subsequently forfeited that gift, a reasonable explanation can be offered: Without the help of the supernatural, our nature, however perfect in itself, is not sufficient to accomplish our original destiny of always being at our best, within ourselves and in our relationships with others. E.R.
____________________
Reprinted from displayed responses December 6, 2000 and December 14, 2000:
Question: How do you respond to someone who says there are no absolutes, especially in the moral realm? The presumption is that everything is relative. This is a philosophical question, not a medical question. Can you demonstrate that moral absolutes exist?
Reply: We appreciate your question and its significance in a society confused and short-changed by the assumption that there are no absolutes. If someone proclaims that there are no absolutes, he or she proclaims a contradiction, because the proclamation is itself an absolute. It says, without equivocation or exception, that there are no absolutes. What could be more absolute than that!
It is strange that the proclaimer would insist on putting gasoline into the gas-tank of his automobile, whereas water might be what others would prefer. Would it be idle conversation to ask what the engine requires, according to the design of its builder?
G. K. Chesterton, in his thoughtful book, Orthodoxy, speaks to an art student who had assumed that the drawing of a giraffe with a short neck would constitute a denial of the absolute. Chesterton replied, simply: "If, in your bold creative way, you hold yourself free to draw a giraffe with a short neck, you will really find that you are not free to draw a giraffe. The moment you step into the world of facts, you step into a world of limits. You can free things from alien or accidental laws, but not from the laws of their own nature. You may, if you like, free a tiger from his bars; but do not free him from his stripes. Do not free a camel of the burden of his hump; you may free him from being a camel." (Chap. 3 - The Suicide of Thought)
The denial of moral absolutes is equally ridiculous. If "right" and "wrong" are to have any meaning, they would have to mean two different things. They could not be used interchangeably. Each, then, must be something unique, something "in itself" and "of itself," in other words, something absolute.
The correct application of the concepts, "right" and "wrong," to human behavior is the subject matter of Ethics. Ethics is the product of intellectual intuition and human reasoning, both of which must be assumed to be reliable sources of truth. To possess truth, said simply, is to know things as they are. So, those who deny absolutes also deny truth or, at least, the ability to possess it.
If I may suggest something for your further thinking, you might ask yourself why do some persons discard the absolutes. They seem to be content with saying that the circumstances surrounding the human act are what totally determine its morality, the proponents of "Situation Ethics, for example. They are partly right in their in their assumption, since circumstances must be weighed during process of making moral judgments. However circumstances can never make "right" something which is intrinsically (by its very nature) "wrong." It is here that the absolute must be reckoned with.
What if someone were to say that telling a lie, under some urgent circumstances, is not "wrong?" You might ask that person whether telling a lie is ever "wrong" and, if so, why. Eventually it will be seen that a lie is driven by the intention of one person to deceive another, which by its nature is contrary to justice and, therefore, "wrong." A lie deprives another person of what is due to him, an honest statement. Without the expectation of honesty in one another, a society could not function, and would soon collapse. The legal "taking an oath" (calling on God to witness to the truth of a statement) is a solemn "back-up" to implement the necessity of honest communication. So important is the need for truth, the lie-detector, despite its debatable reliability, is sometimes thought necessary for the maintenance of justice.
Pertinent to this web site, abortion is never "right" under any circumstances, because it is a deliberate, direct attack against the life of an innocent human person, which is always "wrong" by its very nature. Circumstances often influence one's judgment, by way of one's emotions, but morality does not rest on circumstances alone. If you note carefully you will observe that the "double-effect" principle, which is applied only under specified circumstances, does not, itself, resort to circumstances for its ethical justification. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
Reprinted from December 14, 2000:
Question: In your last post (December 6, 2000), you made it sound so easy for all of us to know what is right and what is wrong. If it is natural to our intelligence to furnish us with this ethical guidance, why is there so much dispute about abortion?
Reply: Your question is a fair one. My first suggestion is for you to remember that knowledge, even when it is true, is only one-half of what goes into our human actions. A person might have a clear vision of what is to be done or avoided, but lacks the necessary willingness to follow his intellectual judgment. Just as there must be a life-long effort to think and reason correctly, we must also discipline our wills. It is through the use of our free-will that we make choices, which is the other component of our responsible behavior.
Remember also that our clarity of vision and freedom of will can be dulled by neglect of discipline, and by emotional influences such as selfishness or fear.
As for abortion, it should not be difficult for most people to see that killing one's own offspring doesn't make sense. It openly challenges our generally accepted sense of responsibility for our actions. And it is so contrary to the natural instinct to nurture one's young, seen even in the behavior of the lesser animals. To use the reproductive faculties for anything other than reproduction doesn't make sense either. Yet, some people choose to act contrary to the guidance of "commonsense," which is the voice of their intelligence.
It is possible that some persons see abortion as something "morally right," but this is generally due to their unfair evaluation of their baby's life. They prize their own advantage more highly than that of their baby. This is a case in which both the thinking and the choosing are faulty.
Some who choose abortion confuse legality with morality. Our government, through Roe v. Wade, has declared that no one may hinder a woman from killing her unborn child, which makes abortion legal in our country. But this does not morally justify abortion, whose objective is always the killing of an innocent human being, which is always and everywhere morally wrong. It is wrong because it steals from an innocent human being not only his or her right to life, but life itself. This is a case of culpable ignorance, because any thinking person should know that a government's approval of something wrong does not change it into something right. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Reprinted from displayed responses August 27, 2000:
Question: Classes are about to begin and I am getting ready to lead our Pro-Life Club this year. This is a college and I am a senior. I have been viewing your web site, to get some ideas. I like your frequent reminder that it is a human being who is killed by abortion. What do you suggest as a brief outline for teaching this at the college level?
Reply: You have chosen the key issue for any discussion of abortion. And your enthusiasm for the truth of "personhood at conception" will stimulate the students with whom you will be working. That is a good start!
Although your group will be engaged in various pro-life activities, I presume that you wish them also to have a firm grasp on the reality of the personhood of the unborn victim of abortion..... and that they will be able to defend their position intelligently.
In working with the students, try to remember that what you have in common with them is intelligence and, I'm sure, good-will. Each person brings into the discussion his or her own history of fact and prejudice, so it helps to start with a plea for objectivity. You might offer for discussion subjects such as these: What is a human being? What is meant by the expression: human beings have a right to life? What is a "right" and where do rights come from? How could you prove that you have a right to continue living, despite the wishes of others?
The first of these subjects is necessarily the first, and is the most important. Since you are already familiar with our web site, you can find many references that will be helpful here. I suggest these final paragraphs of Section 2 to demonstrate that conception is more than a physical happening..... that the new individual is the result of additional causality other than that provided by his or her parents. (Without this non-material dimension, the human cannot be distinguished from the lesser animals.)
The remaining subject of discussion should center on the moral responsibility of human individuals and their governments to respect the right to life of others. In this discussion you might attempt to evaluate the reasons commonly given for the practice of abortion (See Section 7). Here also it would be necessary to examine Roe v. Wade to evaluate its formulation and its consequences. Section 9.
I extend my best wishes to you and your group of students. The problem is in your hands, because you are the future of our nation! Do not hesitate to write again, should you feel that we can help you in this venture. Godspeed! E.R.
____________________
Editor's Note: In the last few years, the world has been awakened to the reality of late-term abortions: They are, and have been, taking place in the United States. Their umbrella of approval is the 1973, U.S. Supreme Court's decision, Roe v. Wade.
Thinking people are asking the logical question: Why is it that a one-day old child is murdered, whereas the same child, one day prior to
birth is merely aborted? Is it not the same child, in both instances, and is the child not equally dead in both situations?
After thirty-five years of mischievous secrecy, it is time to place Roe v. Wade under the revealing lights of truth and justice!
From this reprint, please note that this haunting question has been asked before.
Reprinted from displayed responses November 28, 2005
Question: In the case of Roe v. Wade, do you think that the courts were constrained to make significant public policy or not? Were the courts constrained doctrinally, institutionally, or culturally?
Reply: It is my opinion that the "Roe" court aimed at establishing a change in public policy, in response to what they perceived to be a change in the nation's culture.
In reading what follows, you should keep in mind that the Supreme Court prides itself on being the living Constitution, not merely a Constitution frozen in time.
"We, the people," during the past century had given protection to the unborn by having criminalized abortion. Now, "We, the people," in the eyes of the Court, were clamoring to remove that protection. The Court, seeing the Constitution as the will of the people, seems to have disregarded the original Constitution, in favor of the articulated will of the current generation. In their haste to up-date the Constitution, the Court failed to see that the clamor arose, not from the majority of the people, but from a mere handful of opportunistic revolutionaries.
In the years immediately prior to Roe v. Wade, we had become a permissive society. "Do your own thing!" had been the rebellious norm of individual behavior, progressing into institutional behavior and, possibly, influencing the behavior of the Court.
I cite here, from among many, peculiarities of the Court, a few examples: In ample time before the 1973 decision was handed down by the Court, the plaintiff, Jane Roe was no longer seeking an abortion. She had carried her child to term and entrusted her to others, by adoption. Under normal circumstances, the Court would have terminated the case, as moot, since there was no longer a cause for complaint. But the "Roe" court did not desist in pursuing their action. Did the Court have a mission to fulfill? They continued the case, it would seem, to favor all women in the country who might, forever, be seeking abortions. They accomplished this by prohibiting the states from interfering with the mother's choice to abort her baby.
Equally revealing is the Court's disregard of a fundamental principle of ethics: After admitting their ignorance about the beginning of a human being's life, they proceeded to sanction the killing of what they knew could be human beings. They covered this breach of ethics by speaking of "potential human beings," an expression which has no correspondence to anything in the real world of nature.
By an inexcusable error in reasoning, the "marital privacy" of a previous case, called "Griswold," was illogically tailored by the Court into a "right to privacy." It is this fabrication in "Roe" which protects the maternal parent's choice of killing her unborn baby. The two cases have nothing substantial in common. Nor is there any Constitutional basis for the newly contrived "right to privacy." The Court themselves admit that. The closest they could approach the Constitution to locate such a "right" was in the "fringes of the shadows" of that otherwise revered document.
And something must be said about the Court's total disregard of the paternal parent's right to fulfill his natural obligation to defend his baby's life, in the face of the mother's "right" to dispose of their baby. Does this not indicate the single-mindedness of the Court? The unborn "potential human," as they termed the baby, and the father were given no serious consideration by the Court.
Did the Court's preoccupation with the mother leave women, and the rest of the nation, better off because of Roe v. Wade? Has it improved our culture? Does it even reflect our culture? I suggest giving the full membership of "We, the people" an opportunity to answer those and similar questions, without interference from the Court.
You may read Roe v. Wade, verbatim, here. If you wish to consider our commentary, read Section 9, from our text material. E.R
____________________
Editor’s Note: From the U.S. Declaration of Independence we see the claim that a government may not deprive its people of life, liberty and property (pursuit of happiness.) What is the basis of this claim? The basis is found in a toddler’s reaction to someone’s reaching out to take one of her toys cuddled in her arms. The toddler’s emphatic “Mine!” promulgates the truth of that claim. Her cry is the cry of human nature, and nature is the final “Court of Appeals!”
Said more simply, it “belongs” to a human being to have life, liberty and property. They are part of what he is, and are requisite for his full functioning as a man. Political History has verified this concept.
If a government were to criminalize the possession of private property it might well be charged with tyranny (the government’s injustice against the people.) If a group of individuals within the state were given discretionary authority to deprive other individuals of their property, that government would be termed tyrannical and the activity of the privileged group should be called a form of delegated tyranny.
Since a person’s life is his or her possession by the very nature of things, a government that deprives its individuals of life is also tyrannical. If it should permit a group within its membership to implement that tyranny, it seems fitting that they be called tyrants also.
Legalized abortion, seen in this light of tyranny, is a personal problem, but also a national problem. It answers the question: “Who is terminating the life of the individual waiting to be born? The state must be listed first, by enabling the choice of the individual. Prohibiting private property and prohibiting life are not at the same level of injustice, but they are both destructive of the society that sanctions either of these injustices.
Toleration of what is hurtful, sometimes called permissiveness, weakens the social structure, which ought to be beneficial and not hurtful. Legalized abortion, for example, does not promote the common good of the society. Rather, it diminishes the essential resource of society, namely the people and their talents that could have enriched the culture of the society.
It is here where a serious harm of legalized abortion is often overlooked, that it is a form of tyranny, the state against the people. Legalized abortion is a perverse form of tyranny, the state and privileged people against a class of individuals, those waiting to be born. It is not only unfair to the unborn victims, but it poses the question of what remains of the society after its individuals have been exterminated by legalized abortion. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor’s Note: Is there anyone among our readers who would like piracy to be legalized? Would anyone propose legalization as a method of ending the shipping conflict off the coast of Africa? Perhaps, to save lives of the pirates? It seems to be a neat solution! Yes, the pirates could be asked to pay taxes on their income, the same as anyone else. Any other question?
Just kidding! But there is a question here, about why I would have no takers on my plan to provide the pirates with what they want. Simply this: What they want is not theirs to have. It is already had by someone else! A simple contradiction confronts us here.
I feel no need here to explore the relationship between things and their owners; called ownership. Specifics on the subject are covered by special branches of legal practice. Yet, there is need to review a similar relationship that exists, in nature, that we could call “ownership of self.” This ownership is expressed in Law under such titles as “Rights of Persons” and “Crimes against the Person.”
Does anyone among our viewers feel a need to prove the human being’s “ownership of self” or is it sufficiently evident from our knowledge of our self and of other human beings? Let’s look at it like this: “Ownership of self,” for human beings, is a fact, the fact that condemns slavery, murder, mayhem, identity theft, and so forth.
As the viewer may have supposed, I am preparing to ask the question: ”Is there any essential, ethical difference between legalizing piracy and legalizing abortion?
In piracy, a person’s property is taken; in abortion, a person’s life is taken. In the strictest version of Communism, a person has no property. In slavery, a person is deprived of an essential element of his personhood, the freedom to “be his own person.” Do I hear anyone for Communism or slavery? How, then, can anyone be for legalized abortion, a greater deprivation than the other examples given above!
What goes here! After many centuries of piracy around the world, a modern attempt is currently being formulated to end the practice of piracy. The international effort is focused on one determination: Piracy will no longer be tolerated! As a characteristic of human helpfulness, thought is being given to supplying the pirates with means of support, other than pirating, such as agriculture.
May I suggest that legalized abortion should be given the same, direct and fully human treatment, so that it would no longer be tolerated? Or will we, humans, continue our blindness to the value of our most fundamental possession, our life and the lives of those who are the extension of our life, those waiting to be born!
We have now arrived at the point of asking whether there are reasonable limits to the wants of individuals or of groups of individuals within human society. May we suggest that, in the very nature of things, such as between pirates and ship owners, there are obvious limitations. We have “gut feelings” about those things. Why not also about legalized abortion? It just doesn’t seem fair! Why, then, do we go on, tolerating it?
We know, of course, that there are rules for human behavior. For the most part those rules are perceived and formulated by our commonsense, something we have because of our being human. Because we have human nature in common, our commonsense, sometimes called our moral sense, is in agreement, for the most part, with the moral sense of all other human beings. I say “for the most part” because an individual’s moral sense can sometimes be clouded by emotion, prejudice and laziness. The codification of our moral sense is called Ethics. In our next posting, we will examine some fundamentals of the science of Ethics, in which our viewers are invited to participate. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Reprinted from displayed responses December 12, 2006:
Editor's Note: It is encouraging to see that the international community is beginning to make a stand on respect for human life, with emphasis on the unborn of our community. Attempts at cloning humans is being vigorously debated and strong opposition has developed against it. The banning of destructive fetal experimentation is also a priority of many nations. It is hoped that these conscientious measures will prevent our culture of life from slipping into the culture of death.
We've muddied the waters; we've soiled the skies.
What else to destroy before the planet dies?
We've tattered the fringes; now for the heart!
We'll kill off the people; we've made the start.We've sold our future to sustain abortion;
Cannibalized our unborn beyond distortion.
We'll replace the blueprint with one of our own!
Then await the harvest of the seeds we have sown.Comment: Cultural revolutions, during the time of their development, go through cycles of emphasis, a basic direction, but zig-zagging on their lengthy way to their goal. Our pro-life movement, stimulated by moral persuasion, began with political action, aided by education, and with aid for those with distressful pregnancies. Declining success with political action gave way to public witness, culminating in Operation Rescue. The point of emphasis, up to this time, had been the life of the child waiting to be born.
With the absence of notable success in saving unborn babies, the child, inadvertently, seemed to have become secondary to a growing concern for the abortion-minded mother of the child. At this point, our pro-life effort, mistakenly, appeared to blend in with that of the pro-choice propaganda, the woman as victim, sorrowfully and thoughtfully, making her difficult choice. The reality, of course is that our pro-life intention was to save both the child and the mother, not to emphasize the mother at the cost of the child. The erroneous perception might have a comfort to the abortion-minded community but it was, by no means, a concession to their strategy.
And, so, points of emphasis mark the history of a social movement. Perhaps the zig-zagging is necessary, not only so that experience may be of profit to the movement, but that the stimulus of novelty might keep the movement going. Frustration and fatigue have a way of entering into any prolonged human effort. Points of emphasis eventually blend together and work simultaneously, since they are not in conflict with one another. Yet, at any moment, they color the movement in the eyes of the casual observer.
The above observation leads us to the probability that it is time for our pro-life movement to re-emphasize the child's dignity and worth, continuing quietly all the other good practices of our resourceful history.
A perspective: The bedrock of our pro-life position is the firm conviction that each human individual begins his or her personal life at conception and, therefore, has an inalienable right to life thereafter.
There are some citizens of the United States who, having a Supreme Court's decision to reinforce their position, disagree with our pro-life grasp of reality. How can we best persuade them to consider and, eventually, to embrace our brothers and sisters who are waiting to be born?
At the level of public opinion, in a time when mental and moral disciplines are in decline, it is our opinion that the best teaching is by way of lived-example. "Actions speak louder than words!" How, then, shall we teach respect for human beings living in the womb? We suggest celebrating the lives of our brothers and sisters currently in the wombs of their mothers, just as we do for all other members of our human community.
We propose that social consciousness needs to be raised to a higher level of awareness concerning that part of our community of human persons who are waiting to be born. At the present time, only the parents and their other children know, and rejoice, that a new member of the human community has come into existence. The family maintains this consciousness by mutual support and by joyfully anticipating the birth of their new family member.
It is suggested here that the whole world should know and rejoice at the conception of every human being and, enthusiastically, assist the new member of our society, and his or her parents, should there be need. That is because all of us are a family, in the plan of our Creator. We all feel the truth of the expression: "It takes the entire village to raise a child." But we know that, in practice, the scope of this beautiful saying encompasses only the child already born. Why not also the child waiting to be born!
The gist of this proposal is that respect for human life before birth could be taught to our society by celebrating that life on a daily and neighborly basis. We feel that when such appreciation will be in place, legalized abortion would be ended.
To implement the proposal, we suggest that the first "reaching out" beyond the immediate family could be contact with the family's church community. They could be invited to participate in the inter-uterine life of the newcomer to their community. The parents who would wish to be involved in this program would announce the conception, and whenever there is a special need, briefly report on the gestational progress of their child. The faith-community would respond with prayers of petition and thanksgiving for the welfare of the child and family, and with praise to our Creator who lovingly shares his power of creation with us, through parenthood.
It is reasonable to assume that practicing this proposal in the churches would help others in our society also to become aware of the unborn members of our community and of their rightful place of dignity among the rest of us. As a society, we could learn to practice respect for every unborn member of our community, our own and our neighbor's and, eventually, all who are waiting to enrich our society by their birth. The dumpster would no longer be needed as a "solution" to the individual's "problem," which had now become also the shared-responsibility and privilege of the community.
For those of our society who may not be persuaded by faith and religious practice, we propose a process of reasoning, leading toward awareness and acceptance of Natural Law. Natural Law is the promulgation of our Creator's will, through human intelligence, sometimes called commonsense. On behalf of the unborn, we invite all, believers and non-believers, to look over this web site into the reality of the human being's personhood, from the time of conception, and the consequent ethical obligation of respecting his or her right to life.
Perhaps it would be helpful here to recall the ancient Chinese custom of giving the child, at birth, the age of one year. We see here that the truth concerning the unborn members of our human society had prevailed in the past. It might well prevail again! We should be eager to lay the groundwork for that cultural revolution in our own time.
As we leave these socially oriented thoughts on “how things could be,” may I ask the reader to consider “how things should be?” Although many similar questions appear on our social horizon, I leave our readers with only one question, perhaps the first one in the chronological order: “How can we, as a state or nation, ethically justify legalized abortion? May we, as a society, take it upon ourselves to kill an innocent neighbor? E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
3-19-09 Editor’s Note: The following three, reprinted postings distinguish two kinds of human stem cells, those proper to the earliest stages of embryonic development and those that are generated in, and used by, more highly developed tissue, as found in the mature individual.
The first group, called Embryonic Stem Cells, if used in research, would have to be harvested from an early-stage, living embryonic human being, with a high probability of causing his or her death. The ethical imperative here is: “Do no harm!” The scientific objection against using Embryonic Stem Cells for research in adult tissue is equally clear. Attempts to use Embryonic Stem Cells for healing disorders in mature tissue have not been successful. In some instances, they have been harmful, by causing tumors. Due to the specified purpose of natural activities, Embryonic Stem Cells function only in early embryonic individuals, and under their naturally “preprogrammed” control. Even the artificially modified cells intended as substitutes for the embryonic stem cell are not likely to be satisfactory, because the "matching" problem is rooted in the inability of the mature tissue to communicate knowingly with the embryonic stem cell or its attempted substitute.
The other group of human stem cells, called Adult Stem Cells, function with a high degree of success in healing disabilities of mature tissue and organs. Their harvesting and usage present no harm to the patient.
We reprint these postings at this time because the United States has positioned itself to spend tax money for funding stem cell research, without allowing the ethical and scientific consequences to bear on the decision. We see this to be an unwise preference for politics over science and an illicit preference of politics over morality. We invite you, viewers, to read the following three postings and to submit your comments. 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). E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
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 October 21and October 14, 2002:
Editor's Note: It is encouraging to note that most people who have thought about it, agree with our position, as presented in our last week's posting: Since abortion is contrary to nature's design for reproduction, it is unreasonable for parents to kill their unborn offspring. Some persons, however, object to our position by claiming that certain circumstances present a reasonable choice of over-riding the nurturing inclination of nature, by abortion. We invite the viewers to examine this objection with us:
Comment: The objection presupposes that there are "goods" greater in value than the life of the unborn offspring. This supposition can take two forms, by under-valuing the life of the offspring, or by over-valuing the apparent "good." Both of these approaches are faulty, because they attribute only a relative value to the offspring's life. The human being has an absolute value, as indicated in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal and have an inalienable right to life.
As for under-valuing the offspring, it should not be necessary to examine the claim of those who do not admit to the humanity of the offspring. Frozen embryos are protected by law, not only because they represent someone's "property," but because, when implanted, they continue to mature as do all other human beings and, so, should not have their humanity questioned. How much, more so, should embryos brought about by normal conception be recognized as human beings.
As for over-valuing the "goods" that are offered as justification for abortion, it should be noted that those "goods" usually "benefit" one, or both, of the parents, at the cost of the unborn offspring's life. In no instance can such "benefits" be equated with the right to life which is inherent in the human offspring. Even the mother's right to life does not exceed that of her offspring's. If anyone is confused on this point, I would suggest an examination of the phrase: "except to save the life of the mother." This exception is found in the laws of the individual states of the U.S. which were in force prior to 1973.
It should be observed carefully that this exception does not say that the offspring may be killed in order to save the mother's life. No innocent human being may be killed, even to save many lives. The exception covers difficult situations in which saving the mother's life will be the occasion of her offspring's death, as when a ruptured Fallopian tube containing an ectopic pregnancy must be removed from her body. There is no direct attack on the innocent life, even though the death can be foreseen. The surgical procedure is initiated as the only means of saving her life. At the moment of initiation, her offspring's life had not been in the process of being lost. The mother needed immediate help; her offspring did not. SEE the ethical principle "double-effect."
With these added elements of discussion in place, I invite students to continue thinking about legalized abortion as an example of a civil law in opposition to Ethics, which is sometimes called the science of reasonable behavior." I ask the students to keep in mind that this discussion is not merely academic; it pertains to the way things are. It is my feeling that the young people of the world deserve something better than the injustice and falsehood found at work in the society which they are about to inherit. I also feel that there will be no major ethical improvement in their generation, unless they, the students, are willing to bring it about. Fortunately there is a trend in that direction and, in that, there is hope. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
October 14, 2002:
Editor's Note: We wish to address students, world-wide, on the subject of legalizing practices which are hurtful to innocent human life and, therefore, morally evil. We will discuss what has already been legalized and that which is projected for the future. Abortion will be our first example. The purpose of our discussion is to alert students to the moral flaws of our society, whose future will soon be in their hands.
Elements of Discussion: Many years of teaching at various academic levels have given me a great respect for students who seek objective standards in their academic pursuits, and who also hold themselves to objective standards of human conduct. Most students with whom I have worked are of that moral fiber. On behalf of students such as these, I do not hesitate to affirm the distinction between good and evil; between right and wrong.
I would go further and affirm their acceptance of good and evil as objective realities and not merely as arbitrarily designated things to be done and things to be avoided, subject to change with social fancy. What is commended here is the unhampered human intelligence and the fully free exercise of choice: the intellect seeking and obtaining its proper object, that which is true, and the human will doing the same towards its proper object, that which is good.
To possess truth is to know things as they are. Being truthful demands objectivity. In contrast, knowledge which is colored by the individual, consciously or unwittingly, to suit his or her situation of the moment, is subjective fantasy and is not truthful. The same with choices and consequent actions; they can be good only insofar as their objects are objectively good.
As a definition of "good," it is sufficient to say that the design of our Creator is the measure of good. Any deliberate act which fits into that design is morally good. Any deliberate act contrary to that design is morally evil.
I suggest here that the object of an intended act may be good, such as giving financial help to a poor family, but that the act itself could be evil, as when the gift is stolen money.
It must be said now that the individual person, through human intelligence, after arriving at the age of reason, is able to distinguish right from wrong, commensurate with the person's age and experience.
Finally, it must be noted that the subjective elements of one's action influence the culpability of failure to measure up to the dictates of intellectual judgment, sometimes called "conscience." Uninvited obstacles to clear thinking and to freedom of choice are examples of such extenuating circumstances.
Looking at abortion objectively, that is, without prejudice, it would be seen as an unreasonable act, and one contrary to the pursuit of the good. Stated simply, it does not make sense for parents to kill their own offspring. Abortion is contrary to the tendency of nature, sometimes called the nurturing instinct. For humans, of course, there is more than instinct; there is a felt sense of obligation, called responsibility. Since abortion is contrary to nature it is, therefore, contrary to the design of nature's Author, constituting a moral evil.
Looking at abortion subjectively, as by abortion providers and, sometimes, by legislators and judges, abortion may appear as a "good," though only as "a necessity" or "a claim to compassion" or as "the lesser of two evils."
With the few elements of discussion mentioned above, I invite student viewers to comment on the legalization of abortion and its effects on the well-being of the nation which protects it by law. For students in the U.S. it would be helpful to review the Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, followed by our comments, in Section 9, and the comments of others, in Section 5. Students from other countries may wish to examine the foundation of their laws which approve of abortion. Together we may be able to awaken our common, human society to the unjust, absurd and damaging practice of legalizing abortion. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Comment: In his Father's Day campaign speech last summer, President Obama gave us a look into the way he thinks about conception. He said in other remarks about when a baby gets "human rights" that the answer was "above his pay grade" but he is not shy about using conception to define the point at which fathers need to take responsibility for their offspring. His remarks seem to show that he is willing to discuss the subject of when human life begins. Here are some links to news coverage of his comments:
http://www.mwilliams.info/archive/2008/06/obama-admonishes-bad-fathers.php
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/16/us/politics/16obama.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2008/08/16/obama-says-pointed-abortion-query-above-his-pay-grade/
President Obama is a legal scholar and should be knowledgeable about the arguments in Roe v. Wade. One major issue in Roe hinges on the expression "potential human being." Here is a reprint of one of our essays on this subject:
Reprinted from May 8th, 2000:
Question: You speak strongly against the Court's use of the expression: "potential human being." Is it because you see this as a ploy for denying, or at least questioning, human existence at conception?
Reply: Our first objection to the expression "potential human being" is that it has no corresponding reality in the concrete universe. For a more detailed explanation, may I refer you to Section 3.
For this moment, keep in mind that a potentiality (capability) has to exist in, and be possessed by, a subject. This subject must be capable of possessing it. A doorknob, for example, could not have the capability of reproducing itself, because it is not a living thing.) To say that something has the capability of doing something, we would have to demonstrate compatibility between that something and the supposed capability.
There are two different situations in which potentialities can be considered. In the first, the subject having the potentiality continues to exist in its own nature after the potentiality has been actualized. An embryonic rabbit, for example, has the capability for reproduction. Time and further physical development will be required for that potentiality to become actualized. It is the same rabbit, individually and specifically, which in its embryonic condition had only the potentiality to reproduce, that is now actually a parent.
That which is possessed potentially must be rooted in the kind of thing which is capable of possessing its actuality. If something had the potential for acting, even in the distant future, as a human, it would already have to have been a human to possess that potentiality.
In the second situation, if it were possible for something to have the "potential for being a human," it would cease to exist as soon as the potential is actualized. (The something would have been replaced by a human being.)
But nothing in the natural world has the capability of becoming something of another kind, that is, having a different nature. Its only capability, in the realm of being, is to continue being what it already is. The biologist notes that there is no transition from one species to another. Even Darwin's observed changes were always from one variety to another, within the species. (When he spoke in "Origin of Species," despite its title, he was speaking of the origin of varieties within the species.)
A special problem enters into this second situation, wherein something of one specific identity (nature) is said to become something which has a different nature. Examined carefully, it can be seen that there are no examples of such a transition ever having taken place in our natural world. We must be careful not to assume that we have an example of a transition from the potential to the actual, by saying that "the first something" had a potential for becoming "the other something" (that the potential is in one subject and its actualization is in another.)
If it were said that sodium has the capability of becoming table salt (sodium chloride) we would see no basis for the claim. Left to itself, sodium never becomes table salt. It is only when sodium interacts chemically with chlorine that table salt is produced. In the process, both the sodium and chlorine lose their individual and specific identities in favor of the compound.
It has been suggested that the sperm and the ovum are "potential human beings." In the same sense as in the chemistry example, neither becomes a human being. At conception both lose their identities in favor of the new, single individual product, the "conceptus," which has a nature quite different for either of theirs.
Another problem: Those who assume that the product resulting from the natural fusion of the sperm and the ovum is "only a potential human being," must embrace the problem of how that potentiality is ever to be actualized. See how Aristotle-------- attempted to handle this problem.
It is our position that there is nothing in the world of nature which could possess the capability of becoming a human being. E.R.
____________________