Fetal Life and
Abortion: Human Personhood at Conception
____________________
Displayed Responses 1999 | 2000 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008
2001
December
24th: Is this Christmas really different?
December
17th: Responsibility - how far?
December
10th: A viewer asks: "What do you
think?"
December
5th: Discussion anyone?
November
29th: The second generation of Roe
November
26th: November 26th - Cloning or Clowning?
November
18th: Our sensitivity to human rights?
November
8th: Was Roe v. Wade crafted unethically?
October
31st: Is it too late to break the mould?
October
25th: Body - Soul - Spirit Relationship
October
17th: Eternal Life from Conception
October
12th: Cautious use of reproductive technology
October
7th: Terrorism vs. Respect for Life
September
30th: Why are kids asking?
September
24th: Conception and the Soul
September
19th: Other victims of terrorism
September
12th: "Pulling the Plug" on the
Human Race?
September
6th: The zygote debate
August
26th: Why do they say: " You can't take
only one?"
August
23rd: Blurring the starting point of life
August
18th: Ethics is Required!
August
13th: The President's message August 9, 2001
August
8th: What is YOUR life worth?
August
1st: Poor try, professor! Acorns are oaks.
July
26th: The stem-cell controversy - examined
July
21st: Do I "need" to kill!
July
15th: Stem-cells - muddied water
July
12th: The stem-cell - abortion connection
July
8th: Human nature is talking. Is anyone
listening?
June
29th: Why the killing?
June
27th: Say "No!" to embryonic
stem-cells.
June
21st: What's next! Off the coast of the
United Kingdom
June
13th: Newly conceived - moral agent?
June
8th: Am I my brothers keeper?
June
2nd: Roe overlooked the father
May
27th: Identical-twinning is not cloning
May
18th: Do something!
May
13th: Assisted Suicide - Considered Decision?
April
22nd: Mercy Killing?
April
14th: Repulsed by the thought of human cloning?
April
8th: Cannibalism?
March
30th: Clone Parentage - What difference does it
make?
March
25th: Will cloning follow the path of abortion?
March
18th: The "Roe v. Wade of cloning"
March
10th: Or would you rather be a Clone?
March
5th: Note on the Ethics of human cloning
February
26th: Is Parliament tossing us a bone?
February
21st: Human cloning? Human beings are not
sheep beings
February
15th: Are we a "collapsing" nation?
February
10th: Does IVF give us claim to unborn
victims?
February
7th: Does the Constitution deny
personhood to the unborn?
January
31st: Is Human Cloning scientifically
inevitable?
January 30th: Human Life Amendment!
January
26th: Sheep - And Man - for cloning?
January
20th: Favored treatment in Roe!
January
11th: Cloning and in-vitro fertilization
Question: In my more sober moments, it is still hard for me to believe that any nation, especially our nation, permits parents to kill their babies before they get to be born. Even apart from the deadly assault against their own flesh and blood, they are damaging their country. Human reproduction is for the good of the whole society, not just for the parents. It seems like a contradiction that a nation gives a tax-break to compensate parents for child-bearing and nurture of its young citizens (as it does for religious and charitable institutions that benefit the society) and yet does not prevent parents from killing their offspring.
Why are our people so sensitive to national calamities, such as the World Trade Center attack, and yet are so indifferent toward the legally-protected killing of our unborn? Is this a form of social schizophrenia? Could you tell me why our nation, otherwise great in many other social responsibilities, has failed so miserably to protect our unborn against their parents? I see in our government's legalization of abortion, not only negligence in their duty of protecting one human against the many, but I see actual encouragement for this unsocial behavior.
Reply: As for other forms of schizophrenia, the moral counterpart shows a lack of objectivity. Awareness of contradiction is not easily evident to the patient. As for Roe. v. Wade, the source of your concern, it seems that the Court had removed ethical consideration from its agenda. One glaring example: After having professed ignorance as to when human life begins, they proceeded to sanction the killing of human offspring at any and all stages of its development, including those to which human personhood cannot be questioned. I think it is fair to say that this "moral-blindness," whether in our people or in the Court, is suspiciously more than schizophrenia. Said, simply, the Court did not pause to consider, seriously, whether their decision would hurt babies or the nation.
I am in sympathy with your bewilderment. May I suggest that you turn your attention to encouraging whatever consistent logic you can find in our political body. The logic might eventually extend into those areas pertinent to the rights of the unborn.
With reference to your concern, it is interesting that, at the year's end, we hear such expressions as "This Christmas will be different." The reference, of course, is to the World Trade Center atrocity and its emotional effects on our future behavior. In a recent media-feature Mayor Giuliani, an admirable hero of that disaster, is quoted as saying: "We will stay strong if we remain dedicated to our principles as Americans." Unfortunately we cannot remain dedicated to what we have already lost. Through Roe v. Wade, at least one of those American principles has been abandoned: "....liberty and justice for all." For some of our brothers and sisters waiting to be born, this Christmas will not be different from those of the past twenty-eight years. For many of them, there will be no Christmas at all. E.R. reply@unbornperson.com
____________________
Editor's note: The following is a brief observation on the Displayed Response of December 10th.
The writer is to be commended for upholding the principle of responsibility for one's actions. It is suggested that this ethical principle should be extended to cover the two instances in which the writer fails in responsibility to the child.
One of these, the need to chose between the mother's life and the life of her child, is based on misinformation. In the practice of modern obstetrics there are no cases wherein such a choice has to be made. The legal phrase "except to save the life of the mother" never approves the killing of the child to save the mother's life. It approves, simply, the ethical principle sometimes called "the double effect," covering cases such as ectopic pregnancy, uterine cancer, etc. LINK to an explaination and example of the "double-effect."
Despite the emotional reaction to rape, as delineated by the writer, the child's life is not to be forfeited. The child is an innocent victim of distressing circumstances, whose right to life is greater than the mother's right to be spared the stresses of those same circumstances. She should be supported in her needs by family, friends and social institutions of church and state. It should be kept in mind that killing her child could promote long-range hurting, greater than her initial distress.
As for the child's having to explain his or her parentage, more than likely the the child would eventually see that discomfort as a small price to pay for his or her life.
We continue to welcome additional observations, questions and comments on the writer's presentation and on this review. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Editor's Note: This is the first response to our recent invitation to discuss the issues surrounding legalized abortion. With the consent of the writer, we invite our viewers to comment on this posting and to add insights of their own. We ask our commentators to concentrate, not merely on what is held by a correspondent, but on the reasons for its holding. Also, we ask you to indicate your permission for our posting of your input. At regular intervals we will review the discussion and offer comments of our own.
"Please feel free to post this on your discussion board,
if you see fit:
Abortion. Why? What do you think? Would you get an abortion?
Would you want your daughter to get an abortion? What if your teen-age
daughter was raped and became pregnant? I believe that everyone is
entitled to his/her opinion but if a woman chooses to get an abortion it should
only be if she would die giving birth, if she were raped, or if incest was
involved.
I do not think that a woman should get an abortion just because the father will not stay with her or she just doesn't not want the responsibility. If you are willing to lie down and have sex with someone then you should be responsible for your actions. If you do not want a baby then use protection or do not have sex. When you choose to have sex then you're choosing to take on the responsibility of what happens.
If a pregnant woman discovers a month or so into her pregnancy that she has the risk to die and the doctor and her decide that abortion is the best then it is her choice to go ahead with an abortion. There is always an option of adopting children if this should occur. Choosing who lives and dies between the mother and the child at childbirth is a difficult one. There is no right or wrong choice but it should be a choice non-the-less.
Many girls have felt different and empty after getting an abortion but you cannot expect a woman to have a child that has been conceived by rape or incest. Some women could not even look at their child without it being a reminder that the father of that child is perhaps a brother, uncle, grandfather, or cousin. Other women would find it difficult to look at their child realizing that the father is unknown because she was raped. You cannot put the child through that. Having a child explain that to friends is wrong because of the trauma it could cause the child.
If the woman does not want to have an abortion then that is her decision. I think that no one else can choose for her. A woman that chooses to do this should have it done by a licensed doctor. A woman should not lie about being raped or lie about anything else in order to get an abortion. An abortion should be given the okay of a physician.
This topic is a very touchy one with many options. This is mine. Many people share it with me and many do not. I would be interested in what you think! Thank you!" reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Comment: Even before the Supreme Court's decision I favored the woman's choice to have an abortion. It was mostly, I think, because I was rebelling against the restraints of government in what many of us thought was strictly a personal matter. That was when some of the states were relaxing their abortion laws. Much older now, I look back and see more emotional persuasion than good reasoning behind what I stood for. Lately I have viewed several web sites, prochoice and prolife, and I feel that many of us could profit from knowing more about the prochoice and prolife issues, even if only by studying one another's web sites. I think, too, that a question could be proposed which each side would be invited to consider, followed by a discussion to help us sort out what is reasonable and what is only emotional in both positions.
Reply: I think I see your point: if each group speaks only to its own, "preaching to the choir," as they say, the full truth might well remain hidden for both. By separating what is defensible by reasoning from what is based only on emotion, each side would see itself in the light of truth.
I see only one large difficulty in attempting to implement your suggestion. It is the difference of aspect under which each group perceives abortion: the pro-choice emphasizing the pregnant woman's distress; the pro-life emphasizing the distress of her unborn child.
At the start of your suggested discussion, both sides would attempt to see that the woman and the child are both involved in an abortion. Then the discussion would center on the exact involvement of each, the woman and her child. That would be a necessary start! The question then would become: "What is fair in dealing with each?"
Such a process might meet "irreconcilable" claims, but it would be able to handle them because it proceeds from fairness. Even this simple rule of fairness would be sufficient: Greater values may not be forfeited to the lesser. It is in such an examination that the reasonable could be distinguished from the merely emotional.
Our web site "unbornperson.com" would welcome a discussion such as you propose. We invite hearing from anyone who might wish to participate. We would also welcome whatever is suggested as a profitable question for the pro-choice and pro-life people to consider. Our e-mail is available immediately below. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Comment: I don't mean to be disrespectful of what you are doing. I just don't see why you waste your time worrying about cloning. It is problematic whether anyone ever has cloned a human being or ever will. The big thing that does exist is the very obvious and open killing of human beings by abortion. In my opinion that is what you should be working on, full time.
Reply: Your comment is well taken. I sometimes ask myself why I instinctively respond to questions concerning embryonic stem-cell research and attempts at human cloning. After all, our initial purpose is to protect the unborn from abortion. I've even thought of how few are being killed by these more-recent atrocities, in comparison with the million and a half of our brothers and sisters who are being killed each year in our country by abortion.
What can I say! Unfortunately Roe v. Wade is not a popular subject. It appears that we have very few listeners for the fact that Roe v. Wade is the logical cause of current disrespect for human life and its unique dignity. Yet we have many who are anguishing over the dealers in human flesh: the embryonic stem-cell merchants and the cloners. Perhaps it is less gruesome to hear about those things, enhanced as they are by the mystique of "science" and the wistful promise of wide-spread cures to come?
But isn't that how abortion was merchandized into legality! Not the killing, of course, but the "women's rights" thing. Now that the killing of identifiable babies is firmly established by the "legislation" of the Court, who could disapprove the killing of what are hardly babies at all, and "for the benefit of the sick!" The eager merchants of human "body parts" will be given their niche in the shabbiness of recent history, directly under the shrine of Roe - unless enough thoughtful citizens speak up to prevent it.
This is why we seemingly digress from our primary concern of defending the unborn against the attack of Roe v. Wade. We do not digress, however. Our efforts are being applied against the logical extensions of Roe v. Wade, as they ooze themselves into our 21st Century and, so, against Roe itself. We accomplish this by encouraging our viewers to think, in this instance, from the debilitating effects to that infamous cause, which proclaims for the world to see that our brother or sister, waiting to be born, is "not a person in the full sense."
We invite you, our viewers, to read the Roe v. Wade decision and to judge it for yourselves. Also, you may wish to read our comments, in Section 9 of this web site. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
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
____________________
Comment: While we are fighting for human rights in Afghanistan, our country continues to kill its own people by legalized abortion. How can we dare to say that the Taliban should not kill Americans, while at the same time we are saying that it is alright for us to kill Americans!
Reply: Short-sightedness would be a poor excuse for our behavior in this instance. Moral schizophrenia might describe it more accurately: Do not kill Americans, unless they are not yet completely born!
Some people might quibble over your speaking of our unborn as "Americans." I am not among their number. I will admit that the unborn are not yet, by legal definition, citizens. They cannot vote, nor can they be forced to pay taxes. But they are of us and for us, most often conceived on our soil and are very much alive in our physical environment and in our consciousness.
The unborn are Americans in a sense more fundamental than legality, just as we are Americans, not by document, but by circumstances which are biological as well as geographical and political. A legal document should be quite incidental when it comes to deciding which of us may be killed by another.
I cannot but agree with your sensitivity to the incongruous. You cite inconsistency between our international and domestic policy with respect to the value of human life, high-lighted by the absurdity of being an American at one moment after birth, and a non-American one moment prior to birth.
May I add that it is even more cruelly absurd to be a human being one moment after birth, and a non-human one moment before birth.
Through Roe v. Wade we have placed an obstacle in the path of the light which normally illuminates the good deeds of men and nations. Worse yet, an obstacle to justice and the use of common-sense! E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Question: In your analysis of Roe vs. Wade you accuse the Supreme Court of violating an ethical standard. The justices admitted that they did not know when human life begins. So they should not have agreed to the killing of the unborn, in face of the very real possibility that they are human beings. I see the point you are raising. It makes me wonder whether the Supreme Court could have missed it. I would not like to think that any court would decide a capital case without adequate evidence to uphold their judgment. Doesn't the rule demand evidence to be "beyond reasonable doubt?" I would be horrified to think that the Supreme Court was negligent in its examination of the facts or, even worse, in the consideration of ethical standards.
Editor's note: You may reference this discussion in Section 9.
Reply: In reading the decision of Jan. 22, 1973 I have not found any mention of the Court's awareness of this ethical issue. Perhaps they had already blinded themselves with phrases, such as "potential human being," which would have negated the personhood of the unborn. Their dictum: "not a person in the full sense" seems to indicate that they no longer entertained the possibility that the unborn could be a person. Yet, such a position contradicts their labored confession of ignorance on the beginning of human life.
At best, we might conclude to a rational schizophrenia: Did they say that nobody really knows when human life begins, but we will assume that it doesn't occur in the unborn? If so, hubris of this magnitude is certainly unfitting to a court of justice. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Question: I cannot understand how our people can tolerate the continued destruction of the unborn. Isn't there something that somebody can do to bring a stop to this barbaric practice? I shudder to think that we who profess "liberty and justice for all" are so indifferent to this ultimate injustice to those of our society who are no different from the rest of us, except in not having yet been born. On what grounds of anything reasonable does the Supreme Court prohibits the defense of our unborn, so that no state and no individual, including the father of the unborn person, may protect the child against the government-protected "choice" of his or her mother! Have we gone completely mad, or is it that cruelty is no longer something to be bothered about?
Reply: There is no rational explanation for unreasonable behavior except to say that it is irrational, or to say that it has been undertaken to promote some unjust end. It doesn't make sense for parents to kill their own offspring or the government to sanction their "freedom" to do so. You might judge for yourself whether injustice was intended, or whether ethical blindness is sufficient to explain the unjust outcome of the Court's decisions with respect to the unborn.
As for whether somebody can do something to stop legalized abortion, I would say that each of us could be that "somebody" for whom you are searching.
Only when each of us wants justice to prevail, binding ourselves to its practice in our daily lives, only then will injustice be eliminated from the laws of our land. Only then will we have enough conscientious jurists and legislators to sustain the "inalienable rights" proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence. Only then will the unborn, unable to defend themselves, be able to exercise their right to continue living, the same as the rest of us. Without justice to temper selfishness, the little ones will continue to be exploited by the society in which we currently live.
The cruelest part of this cruelty is the Court's abandonment of its responsibility to promote justice in its deliberations and consequent decisions concerning the unborn of human parentage. To evaluate my harsh criticism of the Court, you may read Section 9, along with the "verbatim" decisions of Roe v. Wade, "Casey" and "Nebraska." E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Question: Considering the entire person, what do you feel is the relationship between the body and the soul, and the soul and the spirit? How does this relate to us and to the unborn?
Reply: The human being is an individual having a material body vitalized by a non-material principle of life called his/her soul. He/she is a person, an individual having a rational nature. You may refer to Section 2 for a detailed explanation of this definition.
As to your question concerning the relationship between soul and spirit, I have usually found that these terms refer to the same reality, and are used interchangeably. In a few instances I have seen "spirit" identified with "human nature." Also, "spirit" (from the Latin word for "breath") is sometimes identified with "life." As you ponder these usages you will see that they are inter-related, emphasizing different aspects of the same reality, the human person. While engaging in that thought process, you will help yourself by remembering that the terms "spiritual" and non-material are synonymous.
These concepts refer to us and to the unborn in exactly the same way. The unborn are human beings; we are human beings. The unborn are persons, just as we are. They are our brothers and sisters. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
Question: In the course of 20 years I desperately tried to become pregnant. I was told, over and over that, indeed, I was producing viable eggs and my husband was producing viable sperm. Therefore, fertilization was occurring - but somewhere after fertilization, my body failed. In other words, when zygotes entered into my uterus, either they did not implant properly, or if they did implant, they could not hold on (for lack of better words). In my understanding, these zygotes, fully coded with all the genetic material needed to become full grown, possessing of a soul, simply were not implanted. This does not mean that they were not humans, they simply never passed this stage.
Given that leap of faith, then these zygotes, possessing a soul. returned to their Creator, unborn, unimplanted. but equally loved by God as if they had been born. So it is my belief that when and if I do meet God in Glory, I will have many (who knows how many?) children, whom I will meet for the first time. Life on earth is but a moment; in heaven it is forever. I may never have had the big family on earth that I yearned for, but I pray that I will in heaven.
Is this totally wacky? Or do I have a partly true thesis? This is a very comforting theory.
Reply: I see no problem in your conclusions. Your case is clearly presented, and your conclusions are logical. Each new human being comes into existence at conception. Regardless of his or her circumstances after that moment, he or she will continue to live forever. This is not only a matter of belief, but demonstrable to reason. Aristotle says, simply, that the human soul, being a non-material substance, cannot cease to exist. Only material things, because they are made of parts, can cease to exist, by coming apart. Non-material substances have no parts.
That some human beings die before birth, even in their earliest days of gestation, is conformable to the ordinary workings of nature, as presented in the biology of organisms In some instances there is a deficiency in the parentage, sometimes in the offspring, and sometimes the cause is environmental. This cannot be construed as being outside of the Creator's plan for the individual destiny of all human beings, since God works through the nature which He created. Because nature is highly purposive, I would be inclined to think that the number of those who die before implantation is small in comparison with those who accomplish it successfully. Your individual experience would be an exception to that of the majority.
May I hasten to say that I admire your outlook in the face of present disappointment. Although you are reinforced by faith in the supernatural, it is not beyond reason for you to plan a reunion with your children. Our social nature prompts all of us to desire that such familial relationships would last forever. And our nature does not deceive us, since the Author of our nature cannot lie. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Question: Greetings! A friend sent me your site. I recently was discussing prolife issues with a friend who claims to be prolife. I told him that I quit infertility "treatment" when the next step was the "GIFT" procedure, where sperm and eggs are mixed in a test tube and all dispatched into the fallopian tubes. I said that the eggs which became fertilized in the test tube had souls and, therefore, I thought this was beyond man's place to fool with. So, I did not do this procedure. He said that these zygotes did not have souls because they were not viable since they were outside the body.
Certainly I was right? Thanks so much!
Reply: Many thanks for your question and its correct answer! In the presence of multiple ova and sperm in the test tube before insertion, it may be assumed that fertilization had occurred in more than one instance. Also, after insertion, multiple conceptions may occur without any assurance that all of these offspring would survive to the point of implantation.
Your question shows a responsible understanding of the dignity of human beings in the most primitive stage of their existence. Our admiration for the "marvels" of reproductive technology might sometimes blind us to their full reality, the deliberate loss of human life which often accompanies those marvels. Correct thinking does not permit even one human to be sacrificed for the benefit of others.
The only ethical use of "GIFT" is the transfer of a reasonably limited number of mature ova from the ovary to the uterus, in the case of blockage in the Fallopian tubes. Fertilization of those ova would follow the normal course of martial intimacy. Because the procedure is difficult and not always successful, elements, such as you rightly condemn, are added, rendering the procedure unethical.
If I understand your friend's position, he is confusing the reality of a human being, already existing, with the chances of that person's survival with respect to the future. You might suggest to him that babies conceived by "in vitro fertilization" are just as much human individuals as others who are conceived within the mother's body. This means that they have human souls, even while in the Petri-dish, before implantation. This is not contingent on whether or not they will be implanted. If they were not already human, what would be the purpose of implanting them, with expectation of their eventual birth into the world of human beings? E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Comment: I have been thinking ever since September 11th, that we should use some of our prolife efforts to fight terrorism. Respect for human life would be a deterrent against deliberate killing including suicide, such as was seen at the World Trade Center.
Reply: Respect for human life is, indeed, a deterrent against killing oneself or others. It is the agenda of the pro-life movement to promote respect for human life, especially on behalf of the unborn. The rationale is the same for all human life: human beings have an inalienable right to their lives, a right that must be respected by all humans, whether as individuals or as nations.
Respect for human life is rational behavior. Terrorism, on the other hand, is irrational. To murder oneself or another can never be justified by right reason and, so, terrorism and respect for human life are incompatible with one another. This raises the question of whether terrorism could be replaced by respect for human life. The practical problem here is not that a choice of priority has to be made, since irrational behavior has only one focus, and everything else is irrelevant. The terrorist is not likely to be attentive to the "merchandizing of the pro-lifer.
It is highly logical, however, that if the learning of respect for human life were to be undertaken from the time of childhood, there would be fewer terrorists. The learning, of course, would have to encompass not only mental development, but also discipline of the will. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Question: I am 12 yrs. old and I am scared when I look back to before I was born because I could have been killed by abortion. It isn't fair to kill babies when they can't fight for themselves. I saw many people working to rescue the terror victims. Why aren't there lots of people to rescue the babies? My father said he saw you on the internet and I should ask you why. It isn't fair to not let them grow up and live like ordinary people do.
Reply: Thanks for your thoughtful question! I would answer by saying that there are lots of people working to save the babies. Some of them are in government, trying to make laws to protect the lives of those who are waiting to be born. Others are people like you, asking questions, and like me, trying to answer them. Your father is working also, by keeping up with what's going on in the world of the Internet, so he can help wherever he is needed. I would guess that you are a pro-life family, and that you are doing your part, even while you are only twelve years of age. Keep up the good work!
If I may make a brief suggestion, I would urge you younger citizens to be proud of the good things Our Country stands for. Study well your classes in Civics and History, to learn about those good things. Your grandparents, parents and teachers can help you understand where we are today, in having seen where we have come from. They will also help you to prepare yourself for the role which you are called upon to perform in our nation's future.
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. By working to overcome our individual faults we are working to overcome the faults of our nation. And that is because we are the nation! In trying to become a better person, you will be helping to save our endangered babies, because you will be making Our Country better. A better country will have laws to protect its future citizens, who are now the babies you are wanting to save. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Question: I was just wondering what your stance is on the idea of the soul. Do you believe that at conception a fetus and a soul are created at the same time, or does a soul follow conception, or a fetus follow a soul?
Reply: The reality of the human soul, in reference to the human being, is the principal focus of our entire web site. We carefully examine the beginning of the human person in the very terms which you are using: When does the human soul begin to vitalize the human body? For a definition of "soul" and its function, may I suggest that you read a portion of Section 2 on this site. You will find special, historical interest in the discussion of Aristotle's opinion on "ensoulment," in Section 3. For a more complete answer to your question you may wish to study all of Sections: #2, 3and 4, along with the Additional Readings which follow them. For now, I will attempt only a simplified reply.
Your question, in part: "Do you believe that at conception a fetus and a soul are created at the same time?" People often use the term "fetus" in reference to the unborn at any stage of development, as you are doing here. So, you are asking about that moment when the human being's soul begins to vitalize the material furnished by his or her parents, and which, then, becomes the body of their offspring.
A human being comes into existence when the two reproductive cells, sperm and ovum of the parents, combine to produce the single-cell stage of their offspring. That which causes the parental cells to combine into one, functioning human being is the soul of that offspring. This happening is called conception.
This does not mean that the soul was created before the human began to exist. It does mean, though, that the soul was existing and functioning at that time. There would be no reason for it to have existed prior to that time. The Creator would have no problem in creating that particular soul for that individual at the moment when it was first needed, that is, at conception.
It goes without saying that there could not be a human individual without a human soul, and that would be true at any stage of his or her development. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Comment: I do not want to appear insensitive to the gravity of hurt experienced in the acts of terrorism on September 11th. Actually it is the enormity of evil in the planning of that atrocity and its hurtful consequences for so many individuals as well as for the nation, that prompt me to write these words. It is heartfelt sadness that has opened my mind, for the first time to see abortion as a form of terrorism. The victim is the same in either instance, a vulnerable, innocent human being deliberately deprived of life.
Reply: Although some might be inclined to accuse you of trivializing the tragic events of the past week, I can see quite clearly that your observation does have merit. We have become accustomed to the practice of abortion during the past twenty-eight years. It's shock-value has worn off. But not the reality.
More than likely it will not take twenty-eight plus years to eradicate terrorism, assuming continuity of present resolve. This may lead you to wonder why we have not overthrown legalized abortion during its twenty-eight years of protected-status granted by Roe v. Wade. Is it because last week's atrocities threaten us, whereas abortion threatens someone other than ourselves? If this were so, we could raise a fundamental question about the sincerity of our democratic pretensions as a nation.
Actually, last week's atrocities have prompted a large measure of generosity and neighborly concern among the people of our nation, often at the cost of their own lives. The difference, more likely, is that last week's victims, having already been born and now tangibly suffering in themselves and in their loved ones, are more "really" our brothers and sisters than are those waiting to be born. If this should be so, then it's "back to the drawing board." In this case it would have to be the "board of education" because the reality is there; it merely needs to be taught. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Question: Do you think that our human society could destroy itself by disregarding the limits of beneficial research?
Reply: I am presuming that you refer to biological experimentation on human individuals. Your question prompts a wide range of thoughts. The world is becoming smaller, because of facilitated communication and transportation. It is also becoming more unified, in the sense of abandoning traditional criteria of human culture. If one country legalizes abortion, others will strain to follow. And experimentation in human reproduction has become universal.
Already, in this early stage of mass media, a large part of a nation (world population?) can be "hypnotized" simultaneously. Orson Wells' hoax about the invasion from Mars, is an early example in our own country. The volume of electronic stock-trading, in our day, shows instantaneous response to the merest hint of almost any rumor.
It is not necessary to mention the declining condition of our physical environment and the poised nuclear missiles, since these are conditions subject to change, even change for the better. The moral environment, however, should be mentioned. It's effects are more lasting, and more influential on the totality of mankind.
"Do your own thing!" and "Me, first!" are anti-social directives. They lead to senseless killing, sometimes mass-murders, not only on the streets, but within the home. Individuals who had never been trained in social responsibility are not likely to see the preservation of the human race as their objective.
Fatal modifications of the concept of what it is to be human are already underway, often with public approval. Attempts at cloning humans is only one expression. Family has degenerated to include same-sex association. Gender, and its social significance, has recapitulated to sexual-preference, with emphasis on self, rather than on society.
Among examples in history, Hitler's ruthless campaign to change the society by world conquest is evidence that the maintenance of what we are, and have been, is a fragile thing. How he could have accomplished it with all the world looking on is best illustrated by the Holocaust, a destruction of society, piece by piece, behind the blinding rhetoric of euphemisms.
It should not be thought that something like Hitler's program of eugenics will never happen again, simply because we are aware of such possibilities. What about legalized abortion, a world-wide holocaust in our time! Add to that the further "elimination" of embryonic human beings through the groundless expectations of embryonic stem-cell research!
I will not attempt to say whether genetic and other cellular modifications are capable of destroying the human race. Isolated genetic modifications resulting from mutations occurring without man's intervention tend to be eliminated by nature over a course of time, as are recessive inheritable characteristics. Large-scale, man-made modifications might well be beyond the ability of nature to handle. The English legalization of cloning humans for research stipulates that the human clones must be killed before 14 days of life. Does this not indicate a very real fear that meddling with the structure of human beings could irreversibly "contaminate" the entire human race, or destroy it altogether?
In response to your question, may I suggest that unless there is reasoned restraint in the current "feeding-frenzy" over embryonic stem-cells, and if genetic engineering can destroy the human race, it probably will. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
Question: I seem to remember reading on your website somewhere that there are two fundamental laws of biology that prove a zygote is a human being. I will paraphrase those laws, in the hopes that you might be able to identify the titles by which these laws are known in the scientific community. It would be very helpful to me, because I have been debating the science behind the fact that life begins at conception. My opponents were not willing to admit that the zygote was even a living being, but at least now they have made that admission. However, they still refuse to believe that the zygote, while alive is not yet a human being. This idea stands in opposition to the laws I mentioned, which in a nutshell are: 1. Two parents of the same species are incapable of producing offspring of a different species. 2. A living organism is incapable of evolving into a different species.
It would seem to me that these ideas make perfect sense, and that nothing to the contrary has ever been observed or empirically proven in the laboratory. However, in the face of indignation, I find that I must be able to provide the identity and source for these two laws. Can you be of assistance?
Reply: Your two statement should stand on their own merit and should not need to be named as "laws" of any individual biologist.
1. "Two parents of the same species are incapable of producing offspring of a different species." This is true because the most significant characteristic inherited by the offspring is its species status which, obviously, is handed down from its parents. No biologist would have any problem with this statement.
2. "A living organism is incapable of evolving into a different species." Although Biology provides good reasons why this is so, your argument here is valid and should be sufficient: "It has never been known to occur." You might remember here that Doctor Darwin's "Origin of the Species" uses the term "species" only in the sense of "varieties" within the species.
You might ask the other persons, having admitted that the zygote is a living thing, whether it is an organism. There is need to agree that only organisms "live" in the fullest biological meaning of that term. Reproductive cells (gametes) are not alive in the same sense that organisms are. See: Section 3. If they are willing to admit that the zygote is an organism, an individual living thing having a specific end and the necessary means of spontaneously attaining that end, then the species status would be pertinent, since every organism is a member of some given species.
It might help both of you to be aware that there are other than biological factors involved in your discussion. The concept of "human being" is not a biological one. It pertains to philosophy, which deals with non-material realities, such as human nature. See: Section 2 . E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Question: An old-time potato chip commercial used to say: "You can't take only one!" This is how it is beginning to look in the developing warfare against the unborn. The abortion people wanted legal protection for killing their offspring only in certain hard cases. Roe vs. Wade turned over the whole ball game to them. The same pattern, now, with government and embryonic stem cells?
Reply: Thanks! Well said! There is one difference, however, between Roe and the present attack on the unborn. Roe professed ignorance about the beginning of human life, but proceeded to sanction the killing anyway, a serious ethical error. In this present skirmish, some participants and many observers, such as yourself, are willing to restrain themselves from overstepping that moral restraint.
Now, shortly after the President's entrance into the conflict, consumers of embryonic stem-cells are jockeying into position for more embryonic humans to be killed, their cells to be researched at public expense. The number of frozen embryonic human beings is insufficient, in their estimation, since "experimentally good" stem-cells can be obtained from them, only in the ratio of 1 to 100. Fresh, unfrozen embryonic human beings are necessary to suit their purposes. Also, it is being discovered that many of the frozen embryonic humans are already "spoken for" by their parents, and are not available for research.
Another concern among the researchers is that many of the existing and available embryonic stem-cells have been cultured on a matrix of mice tissue, with the possibility that its viral content may have contaminated the cultured cells.
The shred of hope, mentioned above, lies in the hands of citizens who are willing to speak up in defense of our unborn brothers and sisters. The perpetrators of Roe v. Wade permitted very little of such interaction with their process. The game is now open to the public. Question: Will "We, the People" rise to the occasion, individually and through our legislatures, to stem the tide of reckless disregard for the rights of our brothers and sisters who are waiting to be born? We, at "unbornperson.com" welcome further questions and comments on this vital and urgent matter. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Comment: Here is one newspaper columnist's solution to the life and death problems of today: "It is useful to view life using fuzzy logic. Life no more begins all-or-none at conception than outer space begins exactly 100 miles up. Life is a matter of degree. Fuzzy logic would not draw a lifeline at conception or birth or anywhere else. Such arbitrary lines are the very definition of binary logic. Fuzzy logic draws curves."
Reply: The columnist's "fuzzy logic" is evident in his own use of fuzzy logic, which is no logic at all. To speak of the beginning of any thing's life in terms of the gradation of atmospheric density is curious at best.
What about this: something bringing itself to life, gradually? Development and growth can take place only in things already alive! Perhaps it might help to see that death is an instantaneous cessation of life, whereas dying is a process of life. Dying can take place only in living things. And, at the moment of death, the living thing no longer lives.. Binary logic fittingly belongs here!
And, equally so, at the beginning of any living thing there are no choices other than the affirmative and the negative. Simply put, something is either alive or not alive, a living thing or a non-living thing. It cannot be both, even a little bit of both, at the same time. If you are in contact, you might suggest that the columnist take a look at Section 2 and Section 3 of this web site. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Question: During the summer break I became aware of many problems relating to human reproduction and technology. Your site has helped me, so I want to thank you for that. Now I am thinking of taking something that will help me to understand how to solve some of those problems. Would a course in Psychology be the way to go?
Reply: A good course in Psychology would improve your understanding of human behavior and help you to know what we, as humans, are capable of doing. And it would prompt you to consider why we act as we do. But, if you have time for only one optional course, you might want to look into Ethics, instead. Ethics would conduct you more directly into the area of your question. Your own experience has given you a sufficient insight on human behavior, and you can amplify that with a formal course in psychology, later.
By reasoning upon your experience you already have knowledge of what we, as humans, ought to do and ought not to do, and you know the reasons why, all of which is the subject-matter of Ethics. While maturing in age and experience, we all run into specialized problems which are more complex than we've been accustomed to handling, such as those which you have mentioned, wherein modern technology has become involved with human reproduction. Here is where a good course in Ethics will help you.
Ethics is a part of Philosophy which deals with our human activity of knowingly and willingly doing what we do. It helps us to examine why our choices are causes of our happiness, or lack thereof. Ethics emphasizes responsibility and accountability for our actions and explains the reasons for the necessity of these human values. To help you with what you are seeking here, Ethics considers not only our individual actions, with reference to self and others, but also the actions of corporate groups, such as our government.
You can see from this brief description that Ethics can and should be a guiding force in all deliberations over the most important of human relationships, those involved in human reproduction. Ethics, a product of human reasoning, should be acceptable to all right-minded persons, and corporate group of human beings, likewise.
Best wishes for a profitable and happy school-year! E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Question: From your point of view, did the President help or hinder respect for human life when he addressed the nation on August 9th?
Reply: Looking only at his message, I see more hindering than helping. Some people might applaud our President for refusing to approve the spending of public money to kill embryonic humans. This good, however is cancelled-out by his willingness to approve funding for experimenting on cells already obtained by killing embryonic humans. There is a time-honored rule of reason which tells us that we may not profit from the evil which another person commits. In this case, neither the sick who, possibly, might be helped, nor the overly-optimistic researchers, should use the ill-gotten embryonic stem-cells.
His willingness to fund research on cells obtained by killing embryonic humans tends to make the evil of killing seem less offensive. This is, at least, bad example for the killers and for the nation. The extractors of embryonic stem-cells had already been mislead by the faulty thinking that there is no guilt in killing embryonic persons who were going to die, or "be wasted," anyway. Now they stand to make huge monetary profit from their evil action, because of their monopolistic possession of the cells. In his statement, our President is committing us to complicity in their evil.
There is another ethical infraction: Whenever human behavior is legalized before ethical questions (and in this case scientific questions), are adequately resolved, turmoil and injustice will result. History shows us that such mischief "grows" in the midst of confusion, and is not easily undone. We saw this in the case of slavery in our country and see it, currently in legalized abortion. A government may not undertake action which is likely to become disruptive of the good order which is its duty to promote among its citizens.
The principle issue among the "scientific questions" mentioned above is the mounting evidence that embryonic stem-cells are not effective in helping to cure degenerative diseases. Introduced into the brains of Alzheimer and Parkinson patients, more harm than benefit has resulted. The obvious reason, often overlooked by the eager entrepreneurs of technology, is that embryonic stem-cells, in their natural environment, that is, in the embryo, will differentiate in a given fashion only when prompted by the need of the developing organism. To expect them to do this when removed from their natural environment and inserted into specialized, mature tissue, is not good Biology.
If you should be looking for consolation outside of the President's address, may I suggest that it is not the President but, rather, the legislature which spends our tax-money. Perhaps we might expect the problem to be better understood through their deliberations, before the spending of the hundred-million dollars, plus the more which would likely follow for a long time to come.
You might wish to consult your Representative and your Senators on this matter. In talking with them it would help you to be thinking of what our President might have said in that address: "We, as a people of right-reason, will have no part in the killing of embryonic human beings, nor in the misuse of their dismembered bodies!"
You might go even a major step beyond that and begin to ask yourself, and the people of our nation: "Why did he not make such a statement?" Perhaps he, himself, would not know. Could it be that we are so "encultured" by Roe v. Wade that we are blinded to the unreasonableness of killing the unborn of our nation?
It might console you to hope that the current interest in the embryonic stem-cell controversy might awaken us to the need that Roe must go. That would be the beginning of a cleansing and healing process in our confused and hurting nation. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Comment: "Give me liberty or give me death!" Patrick Henry spoke forcefully on that occasion because a serious issue was at stake. He was proclaiming that man is not a mouse. Where are the Patrick Henrys of our day! We will misuse the lives of human beings, without their consent, without a choice for liberty, only death. I am talking about human beings in their embryonic stage of life. We talk about our uncertain need for their bodies (stem cells.) Who is speaking-up for their necessary and rightful need of those same bodies? Sorry, Patrick Henry! We are no longer men; we are mice.
Reply: I would agree that there are some in our society who are blind to the rights of others. They get away with their mischief because too many of us are also blind, blind to the simple, time-honored, human instinct that even a good end does not justify evil means. Healing is a noble objective, but killing a neighbor to achieve it doesn't make sense in terms of fairness to all involved.
May I suggest an example of moral blindness in this "debate?" Actually the subject is not debatable, either for those who accept the humanity of the embryo, or for those who are doubtful of the humanity since one may not act in doubt. There is moral blindness in the claim that embryos already existing may be killed "since they are scheduled to be discarded anyway."
To get at the falsity of this sightless-claim, let me suggest a somewhat parallel example: A man has been justly condemned and sentenced to capital punishment. He will die tomorrow. Another man needs some target-practice with his rifle, and finds a moment when no one is looking. No murder, since the "target" was going to die anyway?
Someone might object to this conclusion by saying that the advantage of rifle practice is not comparable to the harmful death of a man. The same person might hasten to say: "If we have something of more value than rifle practice, then it could be alright to kill a man." Here we must pause for a moment, to ask: "What is of sufficient value to equal the value of a human life?" Should we be willing to admit that one person's life is more valuable than another's? If so, what court of justice would you feel comfortable with, should the value of your life be questioned?
Fortunately for all of us there are some Patrick Henrys in the crowd. And it is beginning to show, as the shabby moral fibers of the "debate" are beginning to unravel. To speed the progress, at least in your own mind, you might want to look over the list of those who are "pushing" embryonic stem-cell research. Some of them may be morally blind, some even scientifically blind. Others seem to be driven by a very conscious effort to capitalize on the potential for wealth and power. E.R.
Editor's note: For more on the morality of killing the innocent you may refer to: Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 11-11, Q.64, a.6 reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Comment: I could just scream! Again, today, a reader writes to the Letters Column to justify killing embryonic humans for their stem cells, since they are "only acorns and not oak trees." He signs himself as a retired professor of Biology, having taught in one of our state universities. It amazes me how far some people will go to endorse the killing of our unborn brothers and sisters. Or is it really possible that he does not know that the acorn is a seed that contains a living oak which needs only time and a friendly environment to become as tall as any other oak tree in the forest!
Reply: I understand your feeling, because of my own involvement in Biology. Perhaps he failed to think as a scientist should, in terms of cause and effect, and to have asked himself: If a living oak is not in the acorn at the time it is planted, what is it that causes the acorn to become a living oak at any time thereafter?
For the benefit of our viewers, may I say that seeds of plants produced by sexual reproduction contain a living offspring, an organism of the same species as its parents. The seeds which we buy for our gardens contain living plants, along with food to nourish them until we place them into a suitable environment from which they will obtain their continued nourishment. Simpler plants, such as corn, contain only one food package (cotyledon.) Others, more complex, such as beans, contain two.
In a similar situation, I recall a writer who claimed that the oak tree's life did not need a cause for its beginning, since the life of the tree is merely a continuation of the "life" of the reproductive cells which fused together to become the tree. In relation to the human embryo, he said: "Human life does not begin - it's there all the time. Sperm and egg cells are living human cells. Does the fertilized egg then suddenly become a human being? No, it is a human cell, but not a human being, which to say a person."
He should have asked himself whether the life of an oak tree is of the same kind as the "life" of the oak's reproductive cells. In saying that the life of a human being and the "life" of sperm and ova are, in the same sense, both human life, he poses a contradiction. If it were so, the sperm and the ovum would already be human beings, and would not have to unite to become a human being. It would be helpful here to look at the many uses of the word "life." You may refer to: Additional Reading #2, following Sect.#3.
One unfortunate consequence of this faulty "thinking" is the notion that human-ness and personhood can exist in varied degrees, that one can be more or less a person. This is needed to "justify" saying that these characteristics of the human being are progressively acquired with time and development, and not instantly given at conception. In some instances, the speaker may be confusing personhood with personality. Less excusably, the speaker may be misled by such untenable expressions as "potential life," "potential human being," and "potential person." For clarification, you may refer to: Sect.#9, 2nd paragraph, and all of Sect.#3. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
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.
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
____________________
Comment: Your site speaks about limits to our wanting. This is counter-culture in an age where "Do your own thing!" is the popular mode of self-expression. I remember that when I was younger we were taught that our wanting has to stop at what belongs to others. In those days we would not have had a problem with killing human embryos for their stem-cells or attempting to put our own design on other persons by trying to clone them. That would have been "off limits."
Reply: Many thanks for your "breath of fresh air" in the moral vacuum of ultra modern, emotionally-driven selfishness! To bring your history up-to-date, you should notice that "wanting" is not the current, unjust claim to the possessions of others. Now it is "needing." Sick people "need?" embryonic stem-cells, therefore, they should be permitted to take them, even without their present owner's consent.
In your own day, this unethical behavior was not unheard of, as witnessed in the thirties and forties by Mussolini's take-over of Ethiopian territory, simply because Italy "needed" room for expansion, and in Hitler's rampage of conquest. The European take-over of land belonging to the Native Americans might be added to the list, highlighted by names such as Napoleon and Alexander the Great. Perhaps the only difference between then and now is that there seems to be no shame or blame in thievery, and that it is more frequent than before.
Fortunately there are always some people in our society who know that we must respect the rights of others. In the midst of varying cultures, so long as some of the people are willing to proclaim truth and live justly, the society has hope of survival. In the case of Nazi Germany it took an international effort to prevent the total destruction of that people, where adequate truth and justice were not forthcoming from within the nation.
In our time, and for the good of our society, there is an international effort to outlaw embryonic stem-cell exploitation and attempts at human cloning. The selfish frenzy for cannibalizing defenseless human beings and for making ourselves the designers of the human race's future seems to have captivated much of the media. It is my hope that we, of our country, have not yet reached "the point of no return." May I suggest that you and other thinking persons, by speaking up, could be the ones who will shorten this period of foolishness, and help the rest of us get back to common-sense and self-control. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
_____________________
Question: Why is there so much confusion in the media over stem-cell research? It seems to me that emotion, reinforced by the testimony of entertainment celebrities, is being given more attention than is the appeal to reason.
Reply: I do not know whether any of the media is biased in its presentation of this subject. It is possible that they find more proponents speaking on one side of this issue than representing the other. This, they would call "reporting" the news. Without being facetious I might suggest that the weaker position usually makes the most noise, whereas the stronger needs less fanfare to proclaim its truth. There is also the matter of the many who profit from the weaker position and, so, spend more effort on selling their product. Often the quieter side has nothing to gain, other than the truth.
But I can agree with you on the element of confusion. In NEWSWEEK (July 9th) there is an article on stem-cell research. In one statement it is said that 72% of Catholics favor stem-cell research. Taken in its total context, the statement implies that this group favors embryonic stem-cell research. At best, this is not only misleading, it is an example of poor reporting.
The fact of the matter is that Catholics, as indicated elsewhere in the article, are solidly opposed to the deliberate killing of any and all innocent human beings, whether by embryonic stem-cell research, abortion, "assisted" or self-inflicted suicide, etc.
One source of confusion in media discussions is the assumption that the value of a human's life is relative and debatable, even to the extent of denying certain individuals the right of continued possession of that life, should others deem themselves needful of it for themselves or for others. If one wishes to avoid untenable conclusions, let him of her become convinced about the inviolability of every human being's life.
Another element of the confusion is the notion that the moral evil of killing the innocent is an invention of religion. Even though I have just referred to Catholic teaching, I am confident that most people, Catholic or otherwise, accept their obligation of respecting the right to life, their own and of others, not because a Church has told them that they must. They accept the obligation because it makes sense to them that each of us is "our own person" and not a trash-pile for our own misuse or for the use of others. Most thinking people also oblige themselves to preserve their human dignity and never relinquish it, whether to themselves or to others. We have Patrick Henry's example of this in his noble profession of his humanity: "Give me liberty, or give me death!"
You may notice, in the preceding Displayed Responses, that we have attempted to clarify some of the confusion, by stating that stem-cell research, exclusive of that which involves the killing of human beings at any stage of their existence, should be encouraged. Embryonic stem-cell research, which necessitates the killing of human beings in their embryonic stage of existence, should not. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Question: I saw in today's paper (July 11, 2001) that a business in Virginia buys human eggs and sperm and produces human beings by "in vitro fertilization." Then it kills them by extracting some of their cells, which they plan to use in experimentation. Isn't there some sort of law in Virginia which forbids the killing of human beings? Or is this related to legal abortion, where such killing is protected by the law?
Reply: Roe v. Wade can not be used to protect the killing of embryonic humans by the stem-cell merchants. Roe is limited to prohibiting interference with a mother who chooses to kill her unborn child as a means of becoming un-pregnant. The killing of embryonic, human individuals, outside of a woman's body, is not covered by Roe v. Wade, since no pregnancy is involved there. Even partial-birth abortion should not fall under the banner of legalized abortion, since the woman is no longer pregnant at the time of the killing; her baby is already outside of her body.
Even though the abortion decision does not shelter embryonic killing by the stem-cell merchants, Roe v. Wade could be blamed for encouraging that killing. The rights and dignity of human beings have been eroded by the action of the Roe Court. It is in this sense that Justice Scalia, who dissented from the Nebraska, partial-birth abortion decision stated clearly: "Roe must go!"
It is interesting to note that these merchants do not deny the humanity of the embryonic individuals. They are, after all, in the business of marketing human cells; And it is difficult to believe that their claim to this form of cannibalism is well-intentioned: that some humans may be killed for the benefit of others. No civilized people have ever made that claim, at least none who have survived.
It is curious, too, that the dealers in human embryonic stem-cells have no clinical evidence to uphold their claim for the restorative value of those cells when inserted into ailing organs of other people. There is, however, evidence of hurtful abnormalities resulting from the insertion of the cells into the brains of living persons.
It is important to state here that stem-cells, from sources other than embryonic individuals, without hurt to anyone, have been used with varying degrees of success and should continue to be studied, even with government funding. Destructive embryonic killing should not be encouraged but, rather, prohibited by law. For further reading, you may refer to http://www.all.org/issues/index.htm E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
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. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Comment: I don't understand why people can kill their unborn babies or why they can want themselves to be killed. It simply is not natural for people to go around killing themselves or killing one another. I think that everyone has an instinct to live and to protect other living things.
Reply: You seem to be asking us to explain why people sometimes act contrary to the inclinations of our human nature. I would suggest that, in many instances, even the person does not fully know why he or she behaves contrary to what others instinctively feel as being conformable to their natural inclinations. Often the persons experience a confusion of several reasons and, sometimes, no tangible reason at all, not even a reason for not doing what they do.
However, I can offer some generalized notions pertinent to your concern. I would suggest that rebellion against ones natural inclinations has been going on for a long time. Our having free-will has made that possible! In many instances it is because we do not adequately inform ourselves before making choices, not even to the extent of enquiring into the purpose and value of the inclinations against which we rebel.
In our day there is a special problem. We are destroying human nature and, with it, its helpful inclinations. Roe v. Wade has taken the place of our instinct to preserve life and its nurture. Legal protection of "alternate-lifestyles" has taken place of gender differentiation and its eventual purpose, the family. At a higher level of human behavior, we deny the objectivity of truth by accepting the equality of subjective opinion. And we destroy the objectivity of justice by the legally mandated acceptance of evil, under the guise of tolerance.
For another, simpler summary of your comment and its response in the form of a rhetorical question, you may refer to our "Poems & Related Verses" to reflect on "The Now-Generation" E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Question: What are the "pros" and "cons" of stem cell research? Our U.S. Government is currently debating whether to encourage or ban it. This looks like it should be a pro-life concern.
Reply: The key issue here is the origin of the stem-cells. Early embryonic cells are thought to be the most capable of differentiating into a variety of cells, when interspersed in tissues of various kinds. It is thought that such cells, in a damaged brain, could become brain cells to replace those which had become disabled. However, the harvesting of stem-cells from a human embryonic individual would bring about his or her death.
You can see here that the pro-life concern is, indeed, a real one! No human may be sacrificed by another, or even by all the rest of human society. Each human's right to life belongs to the individual, stamped irrevocably in the nature which causes him or her to be a human being.
The embryonic humans to be exploited would be those conceived by the process of "in vitro fertilization," the same victims targeted by the supposed cloners of human beings. (Limited to the "extra" and "unwanted" human embryos, of course.)
May I offer two considerations: 1. Stem-cell research has been disappointing in its results. Often the insertion of embryonic cells has resulted in serious distortions of the brain tissue, to the detriment of the experimental subject. 2. There are sources of stem-cells, other than embryonic, such as salvaged from the placenta (after-birth) during the delivery of a child, and from the red-blood-forming tissue of human bone marrow, even of adults, without injury to the donor.
As for the status of our country's leadership, prompted by the encouragement of the pro-life community, a ban against embryonic stem-cell research is likely to be enacted, whereas other stem-cell research is to be encouraged. Many other countries are taking the same course of action.
In brief answer to your request, stem-cell research should be encouraged, but never at the cost of any human being's life. Embryonic stem-cell research, in the context of this discussion, is never ethically undertaken by any individual or any government. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Comment: Now I've seen everything! It's that Dutch ship with its female captain, peddling abortions to the Irish people. I'll bet on the Irish. According to an old legend, Saint Patrick drove the snakes out of Ireland. The Irish people will do no less in ridding themselves of this pestilence.
Reply: For our viewers who might not have heard of the situation described above: You may check it our with searches such as: "pro-life in Dublin," since the ship docked there less than a week ago. It is always good practice to go to the sources before evaluating what is heard only indirectly.
To the one commenting: I am inclined to assume that this marine experiment has been undertaken more for propaganda than for profit. It might not be possible for the Irish government to impede this project by any legal process, but I, too, would count on the right-mindedness of the Irish people. The few who will patronize the floating abortion chamber will not be Irish in the traditional sense of the word - a people who have fought for centuries to uphold their human dignity and the God-given worth of their children waiting to be born.
You might add to your collection of bizarre behavior a recent report from a U.K. news service, SPUC, that an Australian is planning to equip a ship, under Dutch registry, to sail the British coast, offering euthanasia to anyone who wants it. The Dutch government has stated that their legalized euthanasia would not be valid outside of their own country. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
Question: I think abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent. Now I have heard the argument that "innocent" implies a person is a moral agent. And thus immediately after fertilization, can that person be a moral agent? If not, then the innocent cannot be a person. How can we counter this argument?
Reply: You have presented a helpful question, since it demands a definition of terms necessary for understanding what it is to be human.
In your first statement, your thinking is correct. ("Innocent" is taken from the Latin verb, "nocere" united with the Latin privative "in" to give us, literally, "not to harm" or, in better English, "not having harmed." Certainly the unborn child has not intentionally harmed anyone. Capital punishment might sometimes be justified, in the case of a fairly convicted criminal, but not in the case of an innocent person.
From this, you can see that "innocent" does imply a moral agent, as indicated in your second statement. Harming or not harming are moral realities and can be applied only to beings having a nature to which belongs intelligence and freedom of choice, namely, human nature.
The answer to your question is yes. Immediately at conception, a being comes into existence possessing a nature to which belongs intelligence and freedom of choice. This being has that nature from its human parents, given by genetic inheritance. It is in this manner that the "species-status" is established for all organisms brought into existence by sexual reproduction
Your final statement now becomes unnecessary. However, it leads us to a very important consideration which underlies your original concern. Permit me to state it clearly: It is not required that a being is actually thinking or making choices, in order to be a human being. All that is required is that he or she have a human nature. In virtue of that human nature, he or she has the innate capabilities to perform such functions, given suitable time and other circumstances.
It might help you to recall that any healthy human, under the upper age-limit for reproduction, can become a parent of human offspring. You will see that this statement is true, even if applied to three-year-olds, or to the human being at conception. Because he or she has human nature, he or she has the capability of parenting human offspring. The actual parenting would not be expected before physical (and, I hope, emotional and moral) maturity had been attained.
In your conversation with anyone having difficulty in granting the newly-conceived of human parentage the status of a moral agent, may I suggest that you refer such a one to Sections 2 and 4 of this website. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Comment: When I first heard of partial-birth abortion, I couldn't believe that anyone would deliberately kill what is unmistakably a human baby. Unseen babies, yet hidden in their mother's body, yes, I could believe that. When a president of our country, after our legislature had banned this form of infanticide, twice vetoed the will of the people, I was devastated. Finally, in the Supreme Court's "Nebraska" decision, I began to understand how thoroughly Roe v. Wade has destroyed our sense of personal and social responsibility toward one another. "Me, first!" and "Do your own thing!" have reared their ugly heads for everyone to see. What we have to do now, is to open our eyes! I am grateful that you are trying to help us do that.
Reply: You strike a sympathetic note in the hearts of all who respect human life and feel a sense of responsibility to its Author. We who are older in years have anguished over the horror of war, with its deliberate killing of one human by another. Even you who may be younger, are dismayed by violence in the home, and violence in the neighborhood. Some of us, unfortunately, invoke history to content ourselves that nothing can be done about man's inhumanity to man.
Even though there is much goodness in our society, may I encourage you to remain uneasy over its present condition, yet to be confident that it could be changed for the better. Human history, as well as our own experience tells us that improvement is possible, and that it does occur. Remember, though, that changes do not come in "big gulps," nor out of a vacuum. It is the little responsibilities of daily life, well encountered, that lay the foundation for an environment favorable to human life. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Comment: I agree with your saying that, through Roe v. Wade, a human being is deprived of his or her most fundamental right, the right to his or her life. I would like to offer my opinion on another injustice perpetrated by that decision, the denial of the father's right to defend the life of his offspring.
Even though the court was not willing to accept the humanity of what was to be killed by abortion, it should have weighed the mother's choice against the wish of a father to preserve whatever it is that he had fathered, especially when he is convinced that it is a son or daughter.
Reply: If that Court were listening, you would see that you have touched a tender nerve, since there is no pretext under which they could hide their neglect of the father's right to fulfill his obligation of caring for his offspring. I would think it fair to say that no serious attempts were made in that decision to balance the rights of all involved in an abortion, whether at the level of the individual or the state. Worse, perhaps, is the neglect of succeeding Courts to remedy that deficiency. You may refer to Section 9 for further analysis of Roe v. Wade. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
Question: Is having identical twins the same as cloning? In TIME magazine, Feb. 19, 2001, there is an article in which it is said that identical twins are clones. I am concerned about that statement, because it was used to say that since God approves identical-twinning, God also approves the cloning of humans, as though they are one and the same thing.
Reply: Identical twins are not clones; they were not produced by the process of cloning. The writer to whom you referred is using the genetic identity of identical twins and the genetic identity of clones, mistakenly, to identify cloning with twinning.
Twinning is, totally, a natural process, whereas cloning is an artificial intervention from outside the natural process of reproduction.
The natural process of reproduction begins with the unification of two half-sets (haploid number) of chromosomes, one set furnished by each of the parents. It must be noted here that the total cytoplasm of the ovum and of the sperm, not merely the chromosomes of those reproductive cells, is involved in this unification, and in the consequent development of the new organism. Again, the natural process requires: 1. an unmodified ovum, with its nuclear content fully integrated with its undisturbed cytoplasm, 2. a sperm, likewise unmodified in its natural configuration.
Cloning starts with an ovum whose nuclear content had been removed, and its cytoplasm had been disturbed from its natural relationship to its nucleus and, perhaps, from its own natural configuration. Into this enucleated ovum is placed the nuclear content of a somatic (body) cell taken from an early embryo of the same species. This nuclear contribution is diploid in its number of chromosomes, the total genetic information of the two parents of the embryonic individual from which it had been taken. If two or more enucleated ova were supplied with somatic-cell nuclei taken from the same embryo, the resulting individuals, (clones) would be genetically identical.
The question now is whether identical-twinning follows the natural mode of reproduction or something equivalent to the artificial process of cloning.
In the case of twinning, the genetic information possessed by the twins comes to them, undisturbed, from their two parents. Clones would obtain their genetic endowment with the above-described modifications. These modifications are not only biological in their consequences, but also in the familial relationships resulting from them.
Although much is still unknown about identical-twinning, there is no evidence that anything even similar to cloning is part of the process. The process starts within a developing human individual, in a very early stage of his or her existence. Instead of maintaining a single center of control, some cells begin to separate from the others, forming a second base of structure and function within the individual. It is not clear from Embryology why this occurs. Nor can the biologists adequately explain how two individuals result from that separation. The twins will be genetically identical in either of the above cases, because the individuals will possess (by replication) the full, unmodified complement of chromosomes and cytoplasm originally contributed by their parents.
Treated from the perspective of Philosophy, the separation is either the cause or the effect of the soul's inability to continue vitalizing the accumulated matter constituting the embryonic individual's body. At that point, the individual dies, leaving two organized structures, each capable of being vitalized by a human soul. Or, the embryonic individual continues living, after having separated itself from its "excess," which is adequately organized to be vitalized by another human soul. On a scale of lesser magnitude, it is a common biological principle that cells must either divide or die when their volume become too great to be served by their cell membranes. It is conceivable, at least by analogy, that whole organisms must do the same in very early stages of their development.
As for the TIME magazine article, for the sake of accuracy in science and in the validity of ethical conclusions, you have done well to question the statement and the conclusion drawn from it. The writer gives no evidence to uphold his statement, yet draws a weighty conclusion from it. This not good Biology and it is not good Logic.
For further insights on your question, you may refer to Sections numbered 2, 3, 4 in the text material of this web site. E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Comment and Question: I am a Pro-Life Advocate. In searching the Web for information to share with my teenage niece, I find countless pro-choice sites and few Pro-Life. I also am concerned that there is no counter commercial on TV in response to that hideous, misleading pro-choice commercial that advocates a "woman's choice," when in reality, if a woman so chooses the "abortion" choice, there would be no cute little girl riding her bike and able to make life's "decisions"...... it would have been made for her while in her mother's womb.... and she, the little girl.... would have no "choice."
What can I do to become more vocal on this issue that simply incenses me? Please advise.... my "choice" is to work for life! Thank you.
Reply: I am pleased to assist in vocalizing your well-placed concern about legalized abortion. May I invite other viewers to offer you their suggestions for returning legal protection to our brothers and sisters waiting to be born?
If I may suggest, you are already doing something, simply by your awareness of the stark reality of what abortion is: not only the deliberate death of individuals, but of the deaths of one-third of their generations. To steal from a human being the experience of living a lifetime here on earth is a cruel reality. Yes, even though there is pain and sadness in everyone's life, there is also pleasure and joy. Ones experience here on earth is what the providential Creator has in mind as a preparation for the eternal joys of heaven. He must also have planned that the genius of each human being would be necessary for the well-being of the whole society. Abortion destroys that plan for the nation, as well as for the individual.
My own suggestion is that you combine your efforts with other pro-lifers, perhaps from your church, school or neighborhood. Both moral persuasion and political action are best accomplished by well-organized groups of persons sharing your sense of fairness. You will be encouraged to see that much is already being done. Your participation will speed the process of bringing our nation back to its responsibility of "liberty and justice for all!" E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Question: In your April 22nd (Displayed Responses) you presented some humane considerations that should be involved in discussions about euthanasia. I am grateful for your insights. Do you know whether the Oregon "Assisted-Suicide Law" makes provision for counseling those who request to be killed. In some states, a woman seeking an abortion must undergo some counseling, so that she knows the truth of what will happen to her baby, and the possible injury to herself. That, I presume, is because such a decision is irreversible, and should not be undertaken in ignorance and under emotional stress.
Reply: The following information from Oregon should help to validate your concern: The annual report on Oregon's assisted-suicide law released in February by the Oregon Health Division reveals a growing "duty to die" attitude among those choosing physician-assisted suicide. According to interviews with physicians who gave lethal drugs to 27 people last year, patients have increasingly expressed concern about becoming a burden to family, friends or caregivers. In 2000, 63% cited this fear compared to 26% in 1999 and 12% in 1998.
The cases reported are only those the physicians choose to report. There is no way of knowing for sure the total number of cases, whether safeguards were complied with or ignored, and any other abuses of the state guidelines. Only 19% of the cases were referred for psychological evaluation (compared to 37% the previous year), despite medical consensus that most suicidal wishes among the sick and elderly are due to treatable depression.
A rising percent of victims were married (67%) and female (56%), raising the question whether older married women were getting the message that they are a "burden" on their husbands and then agreeing to assisted suicide.
For a more complete reply than this space permits, may I suggest a source of information on your Oregon question: http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/publicat/liferisk/janfeb01.htm E.R. reply@unbornperson.org
____________________
Question: It is easy to see that abortion is not right when the baby is healthy. But there are some cases where the baby is deformed and would not live very long after birth, or would be miserable if it did continue living. The same thing seems to make euthanasia possible to accept, if it saves people from helpless suffering which they would prefer not to endure any longer. I have heard that the Dutch people have recently made euthanasia legal. I think that if we keep abortion legal in our country we will want to have euthanasia too. Would your stand against abortion make you oppose that, or is that a different problem?
Reply: No, it is the same problem, and we would oppose it. What is common to both abortion and euthanasia is the delibe