Basic HTML Version
a human being.
1
wholly disagree. The
burden of proof is on you, those who try
to prove thatthe fetus is a human being.
Throughout history it has been self-evi–
dentthatlife begins at birth.
It
is only in
sorne philosophies out of the main–
stream (China, for example) that a
human life is considered to have started
at conception. Western tradition takes
as self-evident the fact that a human
being is not such until birth.
Secondly, in considering the question
of when human life begins, we must
examine what dilferentiates a human
being from animal life.
It
is undeniably
the human
consciousness,
the ability to
introspect and think "as a huma n
being." When does this consciousness
begin? lt is evidently when the prima ry
sensory organs (such as the eyes) begin
to functi on and begin to communica te
vital nonmetabolic information to thc
brain. thereby starting it on its life of
ga thering conscious data.
It
is not until
after birth that such nonmetabolic data
begins to be processed. The individ–
uali ty which exemplifies a true human
being. the personality, the intellectual
growth, and the consciousness of life
cannot be present in a fetus where no
input for the primary sensory organs is
possible. There is a dilference between
murder and killing.
Biblical figurativé Janguage and anal–
ogies prove nothing. If you want to be–
lieve figurative language you'll end up
believing God has wings because one
passage implies that. The fetus can be a
separate being without being a
human
being. Until human consciousness
comes it is not human. These are just a
few reasons why 1 am _not against abor–
tion.
J
have so many reasons why 1 am
for
abortion
1
could write a book. A true
humanistic morality dictates a pro–
abortion attitude. Abortion is necessary
a t the present time for the good of man–
kind.
W. R. Noack, Jr.
South Pasadena, California
lrresponslble Sophlstry?
Your
Plain Truth
diatribe agai nst abor–
tion was one of the most irresponsible
exercises in sophistry
1
have ever read .
The author comes across like a frus–
trated would-be Catholic theologian,
cunningly employing a form of Pascal's
Wager to "prove' ' abortion is wrong.
When all the rhetoric is stripped away,
the author-following the good Catholic
Pasca l-is really saying that God just
might
disapprove of abortion (we can't
absolutely prove otherwise); therefore
we must renounce abortion as a method
for limiting birthrates or face the
The
PLAIN TRUTH December 1977
prospect of being damned to hellfire.
By the same reasoning, we could
reach the absurd conclusion that no
amount of sulfering can ever justify any
action for which the slightest possi bility
exists that God
might
d isapprove. Thus
surely we should have Je t Hitler overrun
the world, for, scriptura lly speaking, no
one can "absolute ly prove" that figh ting
in World War 11 was acceptable to God.
And if God should j udge such actions
unacceptable, then the U.S. soldiers
who died opposing Nazi tyranny will
also be condemned for " killing another
human being."
Stan Ulman,
Fo rrest Lake, Minnesota
lnsulted Female
"The Case Against Abortion" is an in–
sult to all of your femal e readers. An
article about abortion written by a man
is insulting enough; since men cannot
become pregnant, their views tend to
smack of the patronizing and holier–
than-thou. Their stake in this issue is far
less than.ours! The author is no excep–
tion. After groping through the Bible,
he couldn' t find one clear anti-abortion
statement. So he was forced to fall back
on the tired is-the-fetus-alive-or-isn' t-it
argument. Since no one can agree on
how to define "human life" this point
should be dropped. The real issue is:
Do women have the right to control
their reproducti ve destinies?
There is much else
1
could say about
abortion: the teenage unwed mothers
who end up on welfare, a burden to the
taxpayer; the unwanted, unloved kids
who become juvenile delinquents and
later hardened criminals; the whole is–
sue of an overcrowded world with lim–
ited resources. But most important, the
right to abortion is a personal ethi"cal
question for each woman.
It
is no one
else's business.
S. Zukowski,
Phoenixville, Pennsylvania
The author replles:
The main problem
in considering the morality of abortion
is determining what the status of the
fetus is in God's eyes. lf God accords
the fetus the status of a separa te human
being from the mother, then killing it is
the same as killing anyone else. "The
Case Against Abortion" presented the
evidence that God does indeed accord
the fetus that status. Hence, the article
dealt with the theological question of
abortion, not the política! one. The two
questions are separate: In the U.S.
today the woman indeed has the
legal
right to an abortion, but that does not
give her the
moral
right to one.
In the case of rape, the fetus is an
innocent th ird party. Why should the
great tragedy of rape be compounded
by the murder of what is, for all intents
and purposes, an innocent bystander?
Fortunate ly , in our society to day
there is a great shortage of babies
available for adoption : adoption is
an infinitely more humane way to
relieve the " human misery" associated
with unwanted children than killing
them.
Mr. Jones a rgues that such human
misery outweighs the evil of murder.
lt
doesn't. Murder is the worst possible
action one can infl ict on another human
being (with the possible exception of
prolonged torture). Murder is fi nal.
Harm to " the health and well-being of
the mother and fami ly," the lack of
"emotional and economic resources,"
and even "cases of extreme deformity"
do not justify the killing of a human
being after he is born. Therefore they
do not justify the killing of a human
being before he is born.
Mr. Noack. on the other hand. builds
his case on the argument that conscious–
ness and individuality are the criteria
for human life. We believe that the
"spirit in roan" is (1 Cor. 2: 11). Further–
more, the fetus is given attributes of
individuality and consciousness: "And
it
carne to pass, that, when Elizabeth
heard the salutation of Mary, the babe
leaped in her womb ..." (Luke 1:41).
The word "babe" here applies to a six–
month-old fetus; the same word is used
in
th~
next chapter to refer to a ne-r–
born mfant (Luke 2: 12, 16).
Mr. Ulman's comments are amusing.
Leaving aside his
ad hominem
argu–
ments, one should realize that if God
disapproves of anything He disapproves
of murder. And no amount of suffering
justifies murder. (Whether World War
11 is justified depends on whether there
is any such thing in God's eyes as
a
"just
war," in which the killing would not
automatically be characterized as mur–
der. But that is another question than
whether the fetus is a human being with
its own human rights.)
And in answer to Ms. Zukowski, 1 can
only say that while 1 am not a woman, 1
was once a fetus. Since 1 could have
been aborted, my stake in the issue,
while retroactive, is still significan
t.
Fur–
thermore, one cannot remain indiffer–
ent to murder regardless of one's
personal stake in the subject. And in
this day and age of sexual equality, she
of all people should realize that truth is
the truth regardless of the sex of the one
who says it.
-JelfCalkins
39