two people in one body?

There was a letter to the editor in our local Broomfield newspaper a few weeks ago.  My wife Beth wrote a response.  The guy who wrote the original letter then wrote a response to her response and mailed it to our home, which is a little creepy.  I guess he looked her up in the phone book.  Today, the editorials section has a response to her response.  I’ll post the letters here.  I’d be curious to hear your opinion on this matter.

—-

From the January 9, 2008 Broomfield Enterprise:

Definition of life must be logical

It is my New Year’s wish that we can finally put to rest the idiotic idea that human life begins at birth. That concept is not logical.

Think for a moment. All things that end must first have a beginning, right?

The American Medical Society officially declares a human being “dead” when measurable brain waves can no longer be detected. Basic reasoning demands that if human brain waves are detected, there must be “life.” If human life ends when brain waves stop, then life begins (at least) when they start. That’s a logical conclusion any child can understand.

With today’s technology, human brain waves have been detected in an 8-week-old fetus. And as technology improves, it’s bound to get even earlier.

A pro-abortionist may wish that human life begins at birth, but that is not logical. Think about it.

John P. Cardie,

Broomfield

—-

From the February 14, 2008 Broomfield Enterprise:

Definition of life not right answerIn response to John P. Cardie’s letter of Jan. 6, “Definition of life must be logical.”

Mr. Cardie makes an interesting point about defining human life to begin when brain waves can be detected in the fetus. I am not a doctor or medical researcher, so I will not challenge the information he presents. I would like to make another point, however.

When people say that human life begins at conception, they often fail to mention that defining human life that way changes the definition of personhood under the law. A “person under the law” has certain rights, including the right not to be killed. One’s enemy in war is not a person under the law; nor is someone sentenced to death a full person under the law: Both of them may be killed without that killing being defined as murder under the law.

In the history of U.S. law and English common law, on which it is based, an unborn child has never been defined as a person.

Some people in the United States sincerely want to change that, thinking that they will save lives.

However, to define human life as beginning at conception would change that ancient precedent and create a kind of civil rights conflict that we have not faced before: Two persons in the same body competing over rights. That situation would not be good for anyone.

If fetuses become persons under the law, that new status would not be used to benefit them, for example, to guarantee prenatal care for those women who wished to be parents. It would instead be used to further restrict the ability of women to have abortions when they do not wish to be parents.

Reducing the number of abortions is a laudable goal that should be accomplished by providing comprehensive sex education and making contraception easy to obtain.

Trying to reduce abortions by redefining the beginning of human life will only cause more problems and lead to lawsuits.

Beth Partin,

Broomfield

—-

From the March 2, 2008 Broomfield Enterprise:

Law should evolve in defining life

Re: Beth Partin’s letter of Feb. 14, “not right answer.”

Partin’s point appears to be that legally recognizing human life at conception attaches the legal definition of “person” to unborn human life, making abortion murder. She believes that this would be an undesirable result, restricting women’s access to abortion, and “cause more problems and lead to lawsuits.”

I somewhat agree with her analysis, but not that restriction is an undesirable result. Her belief, in general terms, “We should be careful not to legislate poor public policy.” We might remember that pre-born human beings have no vote. Majority rule can be, and in this case is, absolutism. That is not good public policy.

She fails to distinguish between “human being” and “person.” “Human being” is a biologically defined fact, but has no legal definition; “person” is a legal fiction, created by statute, codifying beliefs of apparent qualities innate to every human being. Is it a person? Biologically, it’s moot. But Partin appeals to the law for support, “In the history of U.S. law and English common law, on which it is based, an unborn child has never been defined as a person.” In light of ample, though ambiguous, precedent and statute, her assertion that the law affirms through silence is false. Silence may or may not be construed in the affirmative. It depends.

As a matter of law, we see a bright grey area, no help there. Yet, Partin argues that, through silence, the law authoritatively defines unborn human life, begging the question. I.e.: “Law defines the unborn as non-persons because it does not define the unborn as persons.” This is patent sophistry.

Also, notice that her appeal to law is a straw man argument. “The law does not define them as ‘persons,’ therefore, it is not human life.” The definition of human life is not a legal question; first and foremost, it’s a biological question. Legal definition cannot alter scientific fact. We could as soon legislate the sun to revolve around the earth. Legal definitions are not the source, but the effect, of accurate knowledge. Good public policy requires better than straw man sophistry.

Purporting to be a scientifically enlightened people, we should take guidance from science and conform pertinent legal definitions whenever necessary.

Abortion should be stopped, legally, just as soon as the law finally honestly confronts the biological facts and, accurately enlightened, becomes cognizant that human life begins at, or soon after, conception. To conclude otherwise would render us all out of touch with reality.

Partin warns, “Some people in the United States sincerely want to change that, thinking that they will save lives.” She’s right. Correcting our legal definition of human life will save lives. Thinking otherwise would be dishonest, irrational. Therefore, establish public policy on objective fact, not errant beliefs extrapolated from specious logic like, “The law doesn’t say it’s a person, so let’s kill it.” Really, should not our public policy be to save lives?

Dennis Connor,

Broomfield