From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Wed Feb 05 2003 - 18:41:24 MST
Lee Daniel Crocker writes:
> A spate of depressingly ignorant news coverage of the
> anniversary inspired me to write this.
Nice work. This is the sort of article that I wish more people
could write and more would read. If the general community
and politicians were at this level of clarity and understanding
we'd be in better shape.
>..since
> this is an editorial piece rather than a scholarly work, I do
> not include references for the assertions I make about human
> biology, but I believe I have all my facts right. Feel free to
> point out any mistakes I may have made, though.
I don't have too much time but there are a couple of little things
that either are wrong or may be wrong. I raise them not as
criticisms (I *like* this article) but just because they may be of
interest and even a very useful blade can sometimes be
sharpened further (or made less sharp in the attempt).
> At any rate, it is an anniversary worth noting, and an issue
> worth thinking about, because there will be more decisions in
> the area of human reproductive technologies to come, and we
> should prepare our arguments with an eye toward how
> non-extropians may view them.
>
>
> In Praise of Roe v. Wade
> Lee Daniel Crocker, January 22, 2003
>
> The United States Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade
> has been maligned by both sides of the abortion debate
> throughout the 30 years since it was issued on January 22,
> 1973. It has been called a "non-decision", a "cop-out", "political
> weaseling" and much worse. You've probably heard some of
> those opinions recently. Even though many lawyers will tell you
> that in a civil case, a judgment that both sides complain about
> is probably a good one, they nonetheless will call this decision
> "cowardly" or "muddled".
>
> But the facts are that the decision itself stands up remarkably
> well to detailed analysis of the issues involved, and when we
> add in all that we have learned about biology in the years since,
> it can even seem prescient. I doubt that my words here will
> persuade any of those who are truly commited to either side
> of this debate, but I believe I can at least show that the justices
> really did know what they were doing, legally, morally, and
> biologically.
>
> First, let's make it clear what they really decided, since there
> is confusion even over this. In a recent episode of ABC's
> series "The Practice", for example, lawyer Eugene Young
> ridicules the decision as "nine men in robes making a decision
> for the rest of us". But Mr. Young's tirade is 180 degrees
> from the truth. The court did not "make the decision" for
> everyone; they did exactly the opposite: they said that the
> Texas legislature, despite being a group even larger than the
> court and directly elected by the people of that state, cannot
> make the decision for every woman in Texas. But the
> decision was a bit more complex than that. They further
> divided pregnancy into trimesters, and said that different
> rules apply to each. In the first, only the woman involved
> can decide for herself, and no legislature or court can interfere;
> in the second, the state can regulate to some degree; and in
> the third, the state can step in and even ban abortion outright
> if it chooses.
>
> That three-part standard is what both sides complain about:
> those who believe that all abortion is wrong don't like the
> court allowing women that choice even in the first trimester
> of pregnancy, and those who favor absolute choice don't like
> the fact that the court let the state step in before birth at all.
> Both sides refuse to recognize any substantive difference
> between a first-trimester pregnancy and a third-trimester one
> as far as fundamental rights are concerned.
>
> So let's look at the issues involved, starting at the end: birth.
> There is no question in our society that once a child has been
> born, the umbilical cut and its lungs full of air, killing that child
> is seen as a despicable crime.
Actually there is *some* question. The likes of Peter Singer
have questioned whether a neo-nate should really be regarded
as the moral equivalent of an older child or adult. I like that he
*questions* this because all boundaries that are not arbitrary
or not of mere convenience can withstand such questioning and
remain in place with greater justification, whereas there are many
conventions that are merely arbitrary or historical artifacts that
have outgrown their usefulness. Nonetheless, when Singer runs
this sort of argument many people, including him it seems, do
have a pretty understandable negative gut reaction. Most of us
find it pretty distasteful when someone seems to be chiming in
with a "few good words about infanticide". In the end though it
seems to me that is must be healthier and more moral to consider
more of our social premises. Particularly those social premises
which we have in the areas effected by increasing knowledge
of biology and developmental processes. These are areas where
science hits us squarely where we live even if most folks in a
society don't or can't make the connection between what's
discussed in labs in scientific jargon and what's going on with the
standard of health and wellbeing of themselves and their families.
> There have certainly been societies
> where that was not the case: infanticide was tolerated and even
> common in some cultures, but not here. Our culture, unlike
> many, even assigns gender to infants: we call them little boys
> and little girls from the moment of their birth, while most cultures
> only separate men and women after puberty, treating all children
> as just "children". Our attitudes are more in line with the facts.
> The qualities that we admire, even revere, about people that
> make us revile harming them are just as evident in an infant as
> an adult: people think, and feel, and dream, and laugh, and love,
> and want; infants do as well.
I think this is more true than false but I understand that neo-nates
enter the world with some significant brain development yet to
be done. I think there may be physiological changes happening in
the brain up until around the age of three and this does have
some impact on the sorts of mental processing that very young
children are capable of. Specifically I think it is quite difficult to
form certain types of memory before around the age of three.
Others on this list will know more about this than me.
> Infant boys and infant girls have different
> skills and different personalities that can be observed and
> measured right from birth.
I don't reckon personality could have the same meaning when
a neo-nate is the referent as opposes to say a five year old
child because of the still-developing brain. Piaget outlines
stages of development/learning that most children go through.
The actual stages still seem to hold true even though the rate
at which a particular child goes through them can vary.
> Infants may not be be able to express
> themselves as well as adults, but they clearly are /selves/,
> thinking and feeling as whole people.
I think neo-nates still have to work out the boundaries of
their self. They flap arms and legs about for a while as if they
have yet to discover what it and is not part of them. Cognitively
there is much development going on in the early years. Young
children seem to think out of sight is out of existence up until
a certain stage. An object like a ball that rolls behind something
else and is out of sight seems to be regarded as no longer there
until the child learns that it is. I think this may be part of the
"peek a boo" games adults play with little kids. There's nothing
'sacred' anymore ;-). Some psychologist or other will analyse
almost anything. (Aside: I hope its possible to live in and enjoy
the world even after analysing it or I am in big trouble. I am
also skimming across the surface of the truth here rather than
dipping deeply in. Sorry time constraints.)
> In the past people have
> asserted that infants didn't feel pain, or never remembered
> events from their infancy, but we now know these beliefs are
> false,
On the remembering, I don't know it to always be false.
> and
> that infants do feel pain and joy much as adults do, and their
> adult lives are affected by events in infancy, and even by
> experiences before their birth.
>
> The third-trimester rules of Roe acknowledge a simple
> biological fact: that there is little fundamental difference in kind
> between a child just before and just after birth.
>Hospitals are full of
> infants born weeks early, and while they may need a bit of
> assistance from modern medical technology, we clearly think
> of them as "people" in every important legal and ethical sense,
We do. And I'm glad we do.
> and whether
> they are in a womb or an incubator doesn't much affect that
> evaluation: they have thoughts and feelings and experiences in
> either case, and the thought of ending their lives bothers us.
> There is a person there, and it is reasonable for a state to step
> in and protect that person from harm.
>
> The picture at the beginning of pregnancy is very different. It
> begins with the event of conception,
Ah there is a possible trap here. Many of us in Western
countries heavily seeped in the traditions of Judeo/Christian
religions have picked up and conflate some of the terminology
of religion and we use it interchangeable with science.
Conception, as I understand it (I googles recently but not today)
is a religious phenomenon, fertilization is a scientific one. Often
the general public use them interchangeably. Sometimes though
to do this may be to loose some valuably insights into the way
"society" sees things the way it does. The Christian church which
is the source of the concept of conception is considerably older
than the cell theory. Christian churches did not and could not
have moral positions on embryos, ovum, sperm etc until *after*
scientific inquiry and discovery put these phenomenon on the
sociological map as new physical realities. They did have notions
on conception especially immaculate conception and later they
were into notions of reproduction involving the homonculus. (Little
people fully formed within the sperm). But once they (scientific
explanations of embryos, sperm, eggs, fertilization etc) were
there, religion adapted to the presence of the new reality and
incorporated them. And religion will keep on adapting and
incorporating new scientific knowledge, but it also acts as a bit
of a retardant to the rapid acquisition of new knowledge
because religion simplifies and caricaturises scientific
knowledge for "all too human" non scientific purposes.
In Galileo's time considerable trouble might have been saved if
some characters had looked through the telescope to see for
themselves. Nowadays its the microscope that might be the
more clarifying and educating instrument if only some could be
encouraged to look..
I think it is worth watching out for some ramifications of the
use of different words like conception and fertilization. Its
worth knowing which tradition of thought one is operating in.
Its also worth recognizing that it is scientific inquiry, experiment,
and research that has placed many of the biological facts that
both empower us and require new moral decisions of us,
in front of us. Religions are not big on doing scientific discovery
per se they are big on integrating scientific discoveries into a
broader contextual framework. perhaps even a more human
framework and thereby telling folks what these discoveries
actually "mean", but religions don't actually make the
discoveries which prompt the new sorts of moral questions..
> though "event" isn't really
> the right word because even conception is a complicated
> process in many stages that can be accomplished in many ways.
This is true both for conception (religious phenomenon) and
fertilization (scientific phenomenon). The distinctions matter in
part because religious phenomenon are more debateable whereas
scientific phenomena are verified or falsified and incorporated into
other types of world views and can thereby become religious
phenomena (or perhaps not) as well. Perhaps not, because I don't
think there is a Christian or Muslem position on quarks, liposomes
or mitochondria though recently "the rights of mitochondria" got a
bit of a run on this list. I'm still waiting to see the T-shirt "if you
love your mitochondria set them free". Could make a buck with it
at the next Green rally. I just hope the royalties get back where
they belong.
> But for the
> moment I'll concede the point. Once the DNA from the egg
> and sperm have combined, the newly-formed zygote then
> begins to divide into two cells, four, eight, and so on. At this
> point there aren't yet
> any specialized cells: they're all stem cells, and will only take
> on specialized roles as organs, nerves, and so on much later in
> the process of development.
>
> The process of development itself can take many turns. The
> majority of the time, in fact, the process results in nothing at
> all: most conceptions are simply flushed out with the mother's
> next menstruation, and never develop, and the woman never
> knows that any conception occurred at all.
Yeah looking at this (which is essentially true) I can understand
another reason why conception could get used. In developmental
biology or embryology there are a number of different terms
used to describe the "conception" at different stages. These terms
in some cases are only jargon. To further differentiate can simply
obscure the point that is being made. But *sometimes* by
adopting non scientific terms to describe processes we lose a
large part of the clarity and discrimination that may be necessary
for making moral judgements within the grey zones. The way in
which complexity is simplified for general consumption can itself
be a political process. I am in favor of citizens in democracies
engaging in genuine moral debate but all too often what happens
is not a genuine moral debate but a competition by folks with
agendas to caricaturise complex issues into simpler bite size forms
so that the ordinary citizen voter is more likely to decide in favor
of the person who presents the "prettiest" caricature. We take
this route to some extent when we get too fast and loose and
falsely-economical with certain words. Extropes, perhaps more
than most, can get the words right, we do have the education
and the technology, and in getting them right and talking more
clearly within our local communities we can empower our local
communities to a better understanding of the actual moral issues
being debated as a result of new biological understanding and
possibilities. Individual extropes that talk to other people in their
communities about what they think can empower others in their
community with the tools to get better involved in understanding
the real moral trade-offs rather than merely observing and choosing
between caricatures presented by priests, bioethcists, public
commentators, even stem cell lobbyists and patient advocates.
Its good for society if more voters understand what they are voting
on and a big part of the problem is that the jargon disenfranchises
voters from some of the most important policy decisions and laws
that are made which will effect their lives and the lives of their
families. Extropes can help bridge the jargon-knowledge gap
with an effectiveness in their local communities and the people they
talk too far beyond their mere one vote each. Sorry soapboxing
over.
> In those fewer cases where
> the zygote does make it through the tubes to implant in the
> uterus, its fate is still undetermined. It might develop into a
> person, or two people, or three, or half. Identical twins, for
> example, result when the multi-celled zygote splits at some
> point, and both portions go on to implant and develop into
> fully formed unique people (albeit with identical DNA).
> Identical triplets are quite rare, but also possible. Another
> even rarer possibility is that two different zygotes will merge
> at some point in their development, and develop into a single
> fully-formed person with two sets of DNA. These are called
> tetragametic chimeras, and are often born with defects, but
> can also be born as perfectly normal infants who may never
> know that they were the product of two different conceptions.
>
> This is where the "life begins at conception" argument falls
> down:
(also true for fertilization)
> yes, a zygote after conception is living, in the same sense
> that any of our skin cells or liver cells is living. They can
> divide and grow (indeed, we can now grow skin and muscle
> tissue in vitro from a single cell), and contain a full set of
> genetic material. But the legal question is not whether the
> thing is living or not, or even whether it is human. The legal
> question is "is it a person?", in the sense of laws that make
> harming people an act of violence we detest, or is it merely
> a collection of cells like the skin cells we flush down the drain
> when we wash our hands, or blood cells that we donate to
> the Red Cross? What is it about people that makes them
> specially deserving of such protection? A good way to
> answer that is to think of the twin case: why do we consider
> twins to be two people, not one? It's simple: each twin
> thinks and feels and dreams independently. Each has its
> own personality and its own desires and fears. It is untenable
> to argue that the single zygote that would later develop into
> these two people had any of those qualities: it has no brain,
> no nerves, no eyes, no ears. It had only the potential for
> developing those things--and we don't know yet from the
> zygote stage exactly what it might develop into. It
> might become a person, or two, or half, or it might not.
>
> Likewise, there is nothing special about the type of cell that
> is the zygote. We retain stem cells even into adulthood, and
> any of them also has the potential to develop into any other
> kind of cell. The day is not far off--if it hasn't happened
> already--when a single cell from an adult human will be able
> to produce a cloned person, just as Dolly the sheep was
> created from a cell of her mother. Clearly, it would be morally
> repugnant not to grant that person the same legal rights as other
> people, because she will have the same thoughts and feelings
> as any other infant, despite the fact that she was not the product
> of conception at all.
Actually, literally, a clone is statistically more likely to be a
"conception" (someone's particular idea actuated) than the average
neo-nate who may or may not have been "planned" and whose
genetic make-up almost certainly wasn't so vigorously "selected".
Also when society affords person-like rights to non-persons it
reduces its capacity to fully resource those rights it could or would
have liked to grant to persons. (Eg. There is a real trade off between
the rights we as society chose to allocate to an embryo such as a
spare IVF embryo or an embryo created specifically to be used as
a source of embryonic stem cells and the rights we allocate to sick
persons). Unfortunately (or otherwise) the real world is contingent.
It requires that sometimes we (society) must make moral choices
and balance trade offs and these choices necessarily have negative
consequences for some forms of human life, just as making no
choice also has consequences. Regardless of how people actually
decide to weight the various trade-offs its seems we should be able
to agree to at least look at the biological facts that inform a moral
decision. At present this doesn't really get to happen for most
voters.
> Whether or not you
> approve of cloning, the fact is that it demonstrates vividly the
> fact that the concept of one-conception-one-person doesn't fly.
>
> So the first trimester rules of Roe also reflect what we know
> about biology: a few cells don't make a person, and it doesn't
> make sense to arbitrarily grant them the rights of a person when
> we don't even yet know what they may develop into. The
> mother, on the other hand, is quite clearly a person, and her rights
> can and should be protected. Laws against birth control, "morning
> after" pills, and yes, even first-trimester abortion clearly do
> victimize real women, and we simply can't legally or ethically
> justify that to protect what is clearly not a person.
If only we could teach children this distinction with their times
tables and spelling. What makes a person a special entity not in
religious but in civil society. Or maybe the difference between life,
human life, human being and person would be better explained not
with the times tables but with some basic set theory. A simple book
on this theme would be pretty handy in the chambers of government
in the West right now. I wonder what sort of graffiti they might have
in the toilets. A few Venn diagrams would be good.
>
> Lastly, there's the middle ground: the second trimester. The
> justices here make another wise statement: we don't know. At
> this point in the development of what's now a fetus, it begins to
> resemble a person. Twins have already split, chimeras have
> already joined, and it begins to develop a brain and eyes and
> ears. It might have the beginnings of something like thoughts
> and feelings, or it might not--we just don't know. And because
> we don't know, the justices leave the issue for further debate
> by the people's representatives.
>
> In short, the justices in Roe weighed the legal and biological
> facts before them, and reached the right decision, despite the
> fact that they had to decide decades before some of the biology
> I mention above was known. I for one find that remarkable and
> worthy of praise.
Me too. I'd not seen Roe vs. Wade presented like this. Thank you.
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 05 2003 - 18:18:35 MST