D EAR HONOURABLE MEMBERS. I do not believe you can appreciate how good it is to write to you. I have agonized over the issue of - well, is it really an issue? Far from it! It is a rat’s nest of issues: human life, definitions, expertise, rights, abortion, women, embryos - help! I struggled on with the demon, this foul issue. I confess to you that I was still persuaded that it is the foul issues ( I thought, for instance, of slavery in the past of the U.S.A.) with which the fiercely divided people most need help from their leaders. I believed that a leader ( MPs like yourselves, for instance) was a person who would spy the way out of the bog that we are in ( and what a great bog this is!) and then, with the rhetorical art that marks the politician, convince the people to follow - thus: ... Leading the people ... Out of the bog. Brilliant! But I came to see tha... Forgive me: why am I reporting to you my conclusions? I should just return to the actual events of my tale, so you can see everything for yourselves with much more clarity and delight, for is this not the journey you have already made? Am I ( wrestling with these important questions) not doing all you have already done? Will it not be pleasant to run quickly over your steps and see all that you have accomplished, survey all the questions you have laboured so greatly to answer? A s you recall from my last report, I had had the scales torn from my eyes regarding the vehement opposition to Motion 312. Now I understood: it was prompted by fear that any committee of MPs meeting to hear “what medical (or scientific?) evidence exists to demonstrate that a child is or is not a human being before the moment of complete birth ” would very likely finish with an answer that would support restricting abortions, even though opponents of the Motion said that “The biological or medical status of the fetus is irrelevant ” to the question of abortion. ( Why hate the Motion if it would lend no such support?) The fear is that listening to scientists ( i.e., those in the modern world who are equipped to say what kind of thing it is that resides in the womb and how we should refer to it: a sac of cells? an individual human being?) would quite likely lead in the direction of: human being not gestational sac ( thus backing us into the laws against harming human beings, raising the spectre of criminalization, etc.) . That looked to be the exact case against the motion. How interesting it was, then, that both those like M r. VALEUR-DE-BOIS ( people ready to count the Resident of the Womb a human being) and those who opposed his motion were inclined to think the evidence called for by Motion 312 might very well lead you, dear Members, to a common conclusion! It now struck me that, in my own efforts to fathom all of this, it was worth making a U-turn back to my earlier question: is it clear in Science what a human being is ? I was given more prompting to do so by the following. I s a person who says, “There will never be a consensus on what the fetus is , because this question is inherently subjective and unscientific,” in agreement with the person who says, “Fetuses are biologically ‘human ’ in the sense that they are composed of human tissue and DNA ”? But it was one and the same person who said both! There is a mystery here, I thought, that I wished to unravel. I was reading the words of M s. J. HARTOOR ( a name that had been passed to me by my friend Prema) and, desiring to understand how this author could say both things, I read on. “Despite the potential that a fetus has for becoming a human being , and its similarities to a human being , we cannot say that a fetus is a human being ,” but all the same, she wrote, “Fetuses are biologically ‘human ’.” ( I do not, she added, “secretly think a fetus is really a creature from outer space ....”) ‘Human’, then, is a quality; ‘human being,’ an entity. “A flake of dandruff from my head is human , but it is not a human being , and in this sense , neither is a zygote .” In other words, we can identify scientifically what is from a human being , but we cannot tell whether a fetus IS a human being. I wondered, is there any bit of organic matter on the planet thought to be more baffling than this?! Why is it that only the fetus seems to exist in this fog of oblivion? And then I had a clue, in M s. HARTOOR ’s conclusion! “Because there can be no consensus on the matter , the value accorded to a fetus is a subjective , personal matter . Individuals , not society as a whole , must choose what the s tat u s of a fetus should be .” Is it that Science is unsure of what the fetus is, or is it, rather, that society is unsure of its value ? “Society ,” she said, “cannot decide what the fetus is . There ’s a wide divergence of opinion on whether a fetus is a person , or a human being , and what its moral value should be .” Well that’s different! It’s really quite a bit clearer now, I thought! The mystery was not the nature of the fetus at all; it was the value & s tat u s of the fetus! The nature of the fetus is likely quite clear, which is why people think the evidence will show it. The “wide divergence ” is about the value of the fetus, and thus its s tat u s and personhood ( those who value it bestow on it the status of a person ; those who do not, do not). But people on both sides in this debate were not being clear about this. They were blurring nature & value and treating them as the same thing, as if both were uncertain. Sometimes the people doing the blurring were the same people who tell us ( and quite emphatically) that “The task of properly classifying a fetus in law and in science are different pursuits ,” and that “the status of a fetus should be based on personal beliefs , morality , and circumstances ,” not on science: “science is irrelevant to the question ” of when a fetus becomes a person: “that matter is a legal and philosophical one , not a medical one .” Are we not all agreed that blurring these issues is most unhelpful ! Let us, then, endeavour to say what we mean and mean what we say! Plainly, this bore further scrutiny. I returned to my question ( was there consensus in science or dissensus , as to the point at which we begin?) almost accidentally, for I found myself one afternoon in a used bookstore - one of those dust-filled dens clogged with thousands of cheap paperbacks and obsolete manuals ( but in which the occasional gem can be found) . I came across a set of textbooks on human reproduction and I decided to track down that sentence, in each, that explained what ensues at conception, for surely such a sentence would be found. But oddly, in these texts no mention at all was made of what conception conceives: “The moment at which sperm and egg combine is the moment of conception or fertilization -– the beginning of embryonic life .” ( Virginia E. Johnson, William H. Masters, & Robert C. Kolodny, Human Sexuality, 3rd ed., 1988, 109.) Life has begun, but whose life? The embryo’s. – “Fertilization ... initiates the growth of the new human being .” ( Gary F. Kelly, Sexuality Today: The Human Perspective, 1998, 280.) It was so easy to say, ‘intiates a new human being,’ but this text did not; fertilization initiates “growth .” “Once freed from the ovary , the ovum can survive for about 24 hours . If it is fertilized during that time , a pregnancy may ensue .” ( Gordon Edlin and Eric Golanty, Human Sexuality: The Basics, 2012, 56, 59.) What ensues is “a pregnancy ,” which is a condition of the woman - not a new individual, as the embryology texts had said. But these were not embryology texts; they were texts in the field of Sexology. Was this a scientific challenge to the Embryologists? Did these books show that there was not a consensus within Science? If you are like me, since we were kids we have always believed that science ought to be changed by scientists for scientific reasons, the pivot of our conviction being that fifth-grade class on Galileo: if the Church didn’t like the science, tough for the Church. That is modern thought. I therefore asked, What was the scientific evidence, gathered by the Sexologists, that proved the Embryologists wrong to call the fetus a human being ( or showed them to be advancing merely one of many uncertain theories) ? I began to hunt for this. But it occurred to me one day that Sexology is at the front line of the application of science. It is a blended study of sexual biology, behaviour, and therapy - some of whose concerns are very clear in the title of this text: Human Sexuality: Making Responsible Decisions. These were textbooks developed to train the people whose job it was to help pregnant women N o. 4 5 JUNE 2012 } } The D I S S E N T I N G F U T I L I T A R I A N { { LE T T E R S T O M E M B E R S O F P A R L I A M E N T F R O M A C I T I Z E N O N T H E S U B J E C T O F T H E P R O P O S E D I N V E S T I G AT I O N I N T O O U R H U M A N I T Y W h a t c a n w e k n o w ? W h a t b r a i n s h a v e w e g o t? W h a t c a n w e s k i p ? W h a t m u s t w e n o t ? ! B The Honourable .................... , M.P. House of Commons Ottawa 3•
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
D EAR HONOURABLE MEMBERS.
I do not believe you can
appreciate how good it is to write to you.
I have agonized over the issue of - well, is
it really an issue? Far from it! It is a rat’s
nest of issues: human life, definitions,
expertise, rights, abortion, women,
embryos - help! I struggled on with
the demon, this foul issue.
I confess to you that I was still
persuaded that it is the foul issues
(I thought, for instance, of slavery in
the past of the U.S.A.) with which the
fiercely divided people most need help
from their leaders. I believed that a
l ea d e r (MPs like yourselves, for instance)
was a person who would spy the way out of
the bog that we are in (and what a great bog
this is!) and then, with the rhetorical art
that marks the politician, convince the people
to follow - thus: ... Leading the people ... Out
of the bog. Brilliant! But I came to see tha...
Forgive me: why am I reporting to you my
conclusions? I should just return to the actual
events of my tale, so you can see everything
for yourselves with much more clarity and
delight, for is this not the journey you have
already made? Am I (wrestling with these
important questions) not doing all you have
already done? Will it not be pleasant to run
quickly over your steps and see all that you
have accomplished, survey all the questions
you have laboured so greatly to answer?
As you recall from my last report,
I had had the scales torn from
my eyes regarding the vehement opposition
to Motion 312. Now I understood: it was
prompted by fear that any committee of
MPs meeting to hear “what medical (or scientific?)
evidence exists to demonstrate that a child is or is not a
human being before the moment of complete birth” would
very likely finish with an answer that would
support restricting abortions, even though
opponents of the Motion said that “The biological
or medical status of the fetus is irrelevant” to the
question of abortion. (Why hate the Motion
if it would lend no such support?) The fear
is that listening to scientists (i.e., those
in the modern world who are equipped to say
what kind of thing it is that resides in
the womb and how we should refer to it: a sac
of cells? an individual human being?) would
quite likely lead in the direction of: human
being not gestational sac (thus backing us
into the laws against harming human beings,
raising the spectre of criminalization, etc.).
That looked to be the exact case against
the motion.
How interesting it was, then, that both
those like Mr. VALEUR-DE-BOIS (people
ready to count the Resident of the Womb a
human being) and those who opposed his
motion were inclined to think the evidence
called for by Motion 312 might very well lead
you, dear Members, to a common conclusion!
It now struck me that, in my own efforts
to fathom all of this, it was worth making
a U-turn back to my earlier question: is it
clear in Science what a human being
is? I was given more prompting to do so by
the following.
Is a person who says, “There will never be a
consensus on what the fetus is, because this question is
inherently subjectiv e and unscientif ic,”
in agreement with the person who says,
“Fetuses are b i o lo g i ca l ly ‘h u ma n ’ in the sense
that they are composed of human tissue and DNA”? But it
was one and the same person who said both!
There is a mystery here, I thought, that I
wished to unravel.
I was reading the words of Ms. J. HARTO OR
(a name that had been passed to me by my
friend Prema) and, desiring to understand
how this author could say both things, I read
on. “Despite the potential that a fetus has for becoming a
human being, and its similarities to a human being, we cannot
say that a fetus i s a human being,” but all the same,
she wrote, “Fetuses are biologically ‘human’.” (I do
not, she added, “secretly think a fetus is really a
creature from outer space....”) ‘Human’, then, is a
quality; ‘human being,’ an entity. “A flake of
dandruff from my head is human, but it is not a human being,
and in this sense, neither is a zygote.”
In other words, we can identify scientifically
what is f r o m a h u ma n b e i n g , but we
cannot tell whether a fetus IS a human being.
I wondered, is there any bit of organic matter
on the planet thought to be more baffling
than this?! Why is it that only the fetus seems
to exist in this fog of oblivion? And then I
had a clue, in Ms. HARTO OR ’s conclusion!
“Because there can be no consensus on the matter, the
va l u e ac c o r d e d to a f et u s is a subjective,
personal matter. Individuals, not society as a whole, must
choose what the stat u s of a fetus should be.” Is it
that Science is unsure of what the fetus is, or
is it, rather, that s o c i ety is unsure of i ts
va l u e ? “Society,” she said, “cannot decide what the
fetus is. There’s a wide divergence of opinion on whether
a fetus is a p e r s o n , or a human being, and what its
m o r a l va l u e should be.”
Well that’s different! It’s really quite a bit
clearer now, I thought! The mystery was
not the nat u r e of the fetus at all; it was
the va l u e & stat u s of the fetus! The
nat u r e of the fetus is likely quite clear,
which is why people think the evidence
will show it. The “wide divergence” is about the
va l u e of the fetus, and thus its stat u s
and p e r s o n h o o d (those who va lu e i t
bestow on it the stat u s of a p e r s on ; those
who do not, do not).
But people on both sides in this debate were
not being clear about this. They were blurring
nat u r e & va l u e and treating them as
the same thing, as if both were uncertain.
Sometimes the people doing the blurring
were the same people who tell us (and quite
emphatically) that “The task of properly classifying
a fetus in law and in science are different pursuits,” and
that “the status of a fetus should be based on personal
beliefs, morality, and circumstances,” not on science:
“science is irrelevant to the question” of when a
fetus becomes a person: “that matter
is a legal and philosophical one, not a medical
one.” Are we not all agreed that
blurring these issues is most
unhelpful ! Let us, then, endeavour
to say what we mean and mean what
we say! Plainly, this bore further
scrutiny.
I returned to my question (was
there consensus in science
or dissensus , as to the point at which we
begin?) almost accidentally, for I found
myself one afternoon in a used bookstore -
one of those dust-filled dens clogged with
thousands of cheap paperbacks and obsolete
manuals (but in which the occasional gem can
be found). I came across a set of textbooks on
human reproduction and I decided to track
down that sentence, in each, that explained
what ensues at conception, for surely such a
sentence would be found. But oddly, in these
texts no mention at all was made of what
conception conceives:
“The moment at which sperm and egg combine is the moment
of conception or fertilization -– the beginning of embryonic
life.” (Virginia E. Johnson, William H. Masters, & Robert
C. Kolodny, Human Sexuality, 3rd ed., 1988, 109.) Life
has begun, but whose life? The embryo’s. –
“Fertilization ... initiates the growth of the new human
being.” (Gary F. Kelly, Sexuality Today: The Human
Perspective, 1998, 280.) It was so easy to say,
‘intiates a new human being,’ but this text
did not; fertilization initiates “growth.”
“Once freed from the ovary, the ovum can survive for about
24 hours. If it is fertilized during that time, a pregnancy
may ensue.” (Gordon Edlin and Eric Golanty, Human
Sexuality: The Basics, 2012, 56, 59.) What ensues is
“a pregnancy,” which is a condition of the woman
- not a new individual, as the embryology
texts had said.
But these were not embryology texts; they
were texts in the field of Sexology. Was this
a scientific challenge to the Embryologists?
Did these books show that there was not
a consensus within Science? If you are
like me, since we were kids we have always
believed that science ought to be changed
by scientists for scientific reasons, the pivot
of our conviction being that fifth-grade
class on Galileo: if the Church didn’t like the
science, tough for the Church. That is modern
thought. I therefore asked, What was
the scientific evidence, gathered by the
Sexologists, that proved the Embryologists
wrong to call the fetus a human being (or
showed them to be advancing merely one of
many uncertain theories)?
I began to hunt for this. But it occurred
to me one day that Sexology is at the
front line of the application of science. It is a
blended study of sexual biology, behaviour,
and therapy - some of whose concerns are very
clear in the title of this text: Human Sexuality:
Making Responsible Decisions. These were
textbooks developed to train the people
whose job it was to help pregnant women
No.
4 5 JUNE
2012}}
The DISSEN TING FU TILITARIAN {{
L ET T E R S TO M EMB E R S O F PA R L I A M E N T F R OM A C I T I Z E N O N T H E S U B J E CT O F T H E P R O P O S E D I N V E ST I G AT I O N I N TO O U R H U M A N I T Y
W h a t c a n w e k n o w ? W h a t b r a i n s h a v e w e g o t ? W h a t c a n w e s k i p ? W h a t m u s t w e n o t ? !