Re: [Goanet] IS KILLING UNBORN BABIES A HUMAN RIGHT ?
--- http://www.GOANET.org --- Happy New Year Twenty-Ten --- --- On Fri, 1/1/10, Ivo da C.Souza wrote: > > Scientifically, human life begins with the conception, therefore > abortion is a murder. Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 21:08:58 -0800 (PST) From: Santosh Helekar The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has clearly stated in a strong resolution that the above claim regarding human life "cannot stand up to the scrutiny of science", and that it is basically a "matter of moral and religious values". The academy's position has been supported in an independent petition by more than 1200 eminent scientists, including 6 Nobel Laureates, one of whom is David Baltimore, a current member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. They stated that this claim is "a misuse and a misunderstanding of science," and that "science cannot define the moment at which 'actual human life' begins". Mario responds: Once again we see the conflict between the self-serving needs of "science" as expressed by Santosh, amd of religion as expressed by Fr. Ivo. They are both correct. Abortion interrupts the process by which a human person is formed after that process has begun, but legally, early stage abortions for any reason are not considered murder in secular countries and some late stage abortions to save the live of a mother are legal as well. As Santosh quotes a group of scientists, "science cannot define the moment at which 'actual human life' begins". Is this because they can't, or because don't want to because it would devastate their scientific research programs and/or ideological and/or political philosophies if they did. My questions are a) can these scientists deny that prior to the conception of an embryo there is NO CHANCE of the fruits of that process evolving into a fetus and eventually into a human person no matter how that is defined, and b) can these scientists deny that DNA tests can distinguish every embryo with virtually 100% certainty as being a human embryo, an embryo of some other species, or a non-living "thing"? BTW, endorsements of scientific principles by scientists and Nobel Laureates from unrelated fields are not credible endorsements that should impress any serious observer.
Re: [Goanet] IS KILLING UNBORN BABIES A HUMAN RIGHT ?
--- http://www.GOANET.org --- Happy New Year Twenty-Ten --- From: "Santosh Helekar" <<<...here is a quote from the pre-eminent geneticist and Dean of Yale University School of Medicine, Dr. Leon Rosenberg, stating a position with which the National Academy agreed: "The crux...of the bill before you is the statement"that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception." I must respectfully but firmly disagree with this statement for two reasons: first because I know of no scientific evidence which bears on the question of when actual human life exists second because I believe that the notion embodied in the phrase "actual human life" is not a scientific one, but rather a philosophic and religious one. If I am right in asserting that the question of when actual life begins is not a scientific matter, then, you may ask why have so many scientists come here to say that it is? My answer is that scientists, like all other people, have deeply held religious feelings to which they are entitled. In their remarks at these hearings however I believe that those who have preceded me have failed to distinguish between their moral or religious positions and their professional scientific judgments". ***With this silly argument, all unborn babies could be killed, because they are not "human life" and abortion is not murder. Leave this silly argument only for you, not for us in this New Year... Regards. Fr.Ivo
Re: [Goanet] IS KILLING UNBORN BABIES A HUMAN RIGHT ?
--- http://www.GOANET.org --- Happy New Year Twenty-Ten --- The testimonies copied and pasted in the post appended below were provided in support of a "Human Life Bill" introduced in the U.S. senate in 1981. This bill was never passed. It is in response to these testimonies that the prestigious National Academy of Sciences passed a resolution indicating that these personal opinions of witnesses who happen to be scientists or physicians had nothing to do with science. They were merely opinions based on religious beliefs or speculations. There were other scientists in those hearings who refuted those testimonies. For example, here is a quote from the pre-eminent geneticist and Dean of Yale University School of Medicine, Dr. Leon Rosenberg, stating a position with which the National Academy agreed: QUOTE The crux...of the bill before you is the statement"that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception." I must respectfully but firmly disagree with this statement for two reasons: first because I know of no scientific evidence which bears on the question of when actual human life exists second because I believe that the notion embodied in the phrase "actual human life" is not a scientific one, but rather a philosophic and religious one. If I am right in asserting that the question of when actual life begins is not a scientific matter, then, you may ask why have so many scientists come here to say that it is? My answer is that scientists, like all other people, have deeply held religious feelings to which they are entitled. In their remarks at these hearings however I believe that those who have preceded me have failed to distinguish between their moral or religious positions and their professional scientific judgments. UNQUOTE .Dr. Leon Rosenberg So, as you can see, what has been stated in the post appended below does not comport with reality. I would be happy to provide documentary evidence from authentic sources to back up all my statements in this thread. Cheers, Santosh --- On Sat, 1/2/10, Ivo da C.Souza wrote: > > ***All documentation is from the scientists. Whom should we > trust, Dr.Santosh, or the medical companies regarding > cancer, or the scientists regarding the human life? I think > that Dr.Santosh is misleading us in the New Year too (for > the last six and half years I had to bear up with him). If > Science cannot determine that a zygote is human life and not > a bird (which is the specialization of Dr.Santosh), then > Science is limited and impotent about the natural life > itself. Dr.Santosh is trying to defeat all the statements > coming from scientific circles as "bogus", fake, "garbage", > "scientific illiteracy"... Enough is enough... >
Re: [Goanet] IS KILLING UNBORN BABIES A HUMAN RIGHT ?
--- http://www.GOANET.org --- Happy New Year Twenty-Ten --- From: "Santosh Helekar" --- On Fri, 1/1/10, Ivo da C.Souza wrote: Scientifically, human life begins with the conception, therefore abortion is a murder. Averthanus D'Souza is doing a good job by guiding the readers in the right path. Let the readers have better guides in the New Year. > I hope readers are guided by truth, accuracy and sound information in the new year, as far as the natural world is concerned. The claim made above on behalf of science is bogus. ***All documentation is from the scientists. Whom should we trust, Dr.Santosh, or the medical companies regarding cancer, or the scientists regarding the human life? I think that Dr.Santosh is misleading us in the New Year too (for the last six and half years I had to bear up with him). If Science cannot determine that a zygote is human life and not a bird (which is the specialization of Dr.Santosh), then Science is limited and impotent about the natural life itself. Dr.Santosh is trying to defeat all the statements coming from scientific circles as "bogus", fake, "garbage", "scientific illiteracy"... Enough is enough... << itself with the pious beliefs about the beginnings of life of any particular religious denomination. ***The beginning of human life is not a "pious belief" of "any particular religious denomination". I think that Dr.Santosh is totally wrong. Science certainly has nothing to do with the determination of what constitutes murder. But in a secular democracy its definition cannot be dictated or hijacked by the parochial sectarian beliefs of any religion or creed. ***Science does not deal with value-judgments and ethical values. But Science cannot be alien to them. The Church works in collaboration with the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. It is not the question of individual opinions, but of the Academy as such. Secular democracy cannot be without ethical values which come from the human nature itself: the value of Man. There are many religions and religious organizations that have explicitly stated views that are in support of embryonic stem cell research. ***I did not speak of "embryonic stem cell research". There are reasons for the Church to give her views and a word of caution on the stem cells. *I am quoting the scientists on the human life. If Dr.Santosh rejects these statements as "garbage", then I close this discussion by standing by what I am contending. Dr.Santosh will go on shouting his usual slogans and try to be the "last word", as usual... Regards. Fr.Ivo (See Frederick T. Zugibe, M.S., M.D., Ph.D., FCAP, FACC, FAAFS, in http://www.e-forensicmedicine.net/code.htm): "Many pro-abortionists utilize the definitions from Descartes and other philosophers who define a person as someone who acts rationally, is self conscious, is self-aware, and sentient. Some pro-abortionists like Peter Singer, the founder of the animal rights movement go so far as to argue that non-human animals like chimpanzees, dogs or pigs are more rational, self conscious, more aware and sentient than a human baby a week, a month or even a year old and therefore it appears that the latter are of less value than the life of these animals thus alluding that newborn babies should be used for experimentation before these animals. If the personhood principle depends on rationality, awareness, self consciousness, then we are in deep trouble because this would exclude full term fetuses, newborn infants, infants perhaps up to two years old, the markedly retarded, patients with organic mental syndrome. Alzheimer patients and patient's with cerebral trauma who are in coma. Since the personhood principle pervades the court system, one can readily see how euthanasia can gain easy entrance." See: http://www.humanlife.org/abortion_scientists_attest.php "Scientists Attest to Life Beginning at Conception by Randy Alcorn Some of the world's most prominent scientists and physicians testified to a U.S. Senate committee that human life begins at conception: A United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. All of the quotes from the following experts come directly from the official government record of their testimony.1 Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated: "I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence, from conception to adulthood, and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of
Re: [Goanet] IS KILLING UNBORN BABIES A HUMAN RIGHT ?
--- http://www.GOANET.org --- Happy New Year Twenty-Ten --- --- On Fri, 1/1/10, Ivo da C.Souza wrote: > >Scientifically, human life begins with the conception, therefore abortion >is >a murder. Science has Averthanus D'Souza is doing a good job by >guiding the >readers in the right path. Let the readers have better guides >in the New Year. > I hope readers are guided by truth, accuracy and sound information in the new year, as far as the natural world is concerned. The claim made above on behalf of science is bogus. Science has never concerned itself with the pious beliefs about the beginnings of life of any particular religious denomination. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has clearly stated in a strong resolution that the above claim regarding human life "cannot stand up to the scrutiny of science", and that it is basically a "matter of moral and religious values". The academy's position has been supported in an independent petition by more than 1200 eminent scientists, including 6 Nobel Laureates, one of whom is David Baltimore, a current member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. They stated that this claim is "a misuse and a misunderstanding of science," and that "science cannot define the moment at which 'actual human life' begins". What science has done, however, is it has completely rejected the antiquated medieval ideas of vitalism, vital force, life energy, kundalini, chi, etc. It has shown that these speculations have no value in explaining the self-sustaining material and energetic processes that take place within every cell of the body, including the fertilized egg. Science certainly has nothing to do with the determination of what constitutes murder. But in a secular democracy its definition cannot be dictated or hijacked by the parochial sectarian beliefs of any religion or creed. Those who try to do it are simply using it as a political weapon to demonize people of other religions and beliefs who do not agree with them. There are many religions and religious organizations that have explicitly stated views that are in support of embryonic stem cell research. Other religious entities have refrained from stating their support or opposition to embryonic stem cell research, recognizing the diversity of personal moral positions adopted by their adherents based on their own life experiences and understanding. These two types of religions and religious organizations are as follows: Judaism Episcopal Church Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations United Church of Christ United Methodist Church Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Islam American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A. Buddhism Anglican Church Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Hinduism National Council of Churches Happy New Year! Cheers, Santosh
Re: [Goanet] IS KILLING UNBORN BABIES A HUMAN RIGHT ?
--- http://www.GOANET.org --- Happy New Year Twenty-Ten --- From: "Mario Goveia" For the rest of us who care about these things, human life has to begin at conception, i.e. with the embryo, because a) none of the other stuff will ever happen without an embryo, and b) genetic science can now distinguish with 100% certainty between a human embryo, the embryo of some other species, and a non-living thing. ***Mario, You are absolutely right. Scientifically, human life begins with the conception, therefore abortion is a murder. Averthanus D'Souza is doing a good job by guiding the readers in the right path. Let the readers have better guides in the New Year. I am quoting from the Website: http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html. World-renowned geneticists like Jerome Lejeune have already given us the statement in the light of modern sciences. "Life Begin at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception The following references illustrate the fact that a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote: "Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote." [England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31] "Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception). "Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being." [Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2] "Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus." [Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.] "Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus." [Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146] "Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term 'embryo' is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy." [Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160] "The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote." [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3] "Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life." [Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943] "I would say that among most scientists, the word 'embryo' includes the time from after fertilization..." [Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2
Re: [Goanet] IS KILLING UNBORN BABIES A HUMAN RIGHT ?
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:47:30 -0800 (PST) From: Santosh Helekar >From a neurophysiological standpoint a rudimentary brain begins functioning at >10 weeks of gestation, as measured by the initiation of electrical activity. >Cerebral cortical activity begins at 22 weeks of gestation. Medical abortion is a legal medical procedure important for saving the life of the mother in some medical conditions. It should never be criminalized. The debate about personhood has no bearing on this issue, just as it has no bearing on the issue of killing of military and civilian lives in war, judicial executions and killing in self-defense. It is a pragmatic philosophy informed by scientific facts and real life problems in the medical field and in society. It is also a political philosophy driven by the principle that in a secular democracy the beliefs of any particular religion should not be imposed on all people through government action or by the will of the majority. Otherwise cow slaughter would be criminalized in India. Mario observes: This particular discussion started with an essay by Averthanus in which he writes about three Irish women who had gone to Britain to get abortions because abortions are banned in Ireland. As with many extremists, the fact that they could legally kill their unborn babies was not good enough for them. According to Averthanus, they then proceeded to file a "suit before the European Court of Human Rights challenging the Irish Constitution, which protects all human life from the moment of conception. Their contention is that the lack of abortion facilities in Ireland breaches the human rights of women to terminate their pregnancies." Thus, the title of this thread. Apparently, Ireland was assured that before joining the European Union that their national sovereignty and constitution would not be trampled by their membership in the EU. So, we'll see what happens to this case where KILLING the unborn within them is now being claimed, not as a medical or social right under certain constraints, but as a broader human right, which hitherto has been a right to LIVE in peace and security. Santosh's primary concern seems to be that laws may be passed that impede the use of EMBRYONIC stem cells in medical research which he, as a medical research scientist, believes will benefit society if and when cures for human illnesses and physical conditions are developed. His secondary concern seems to be that abortions are sometimes necessary to save the life of the mother. His third concern seems to be that the opposition to abortion is purely religious and that in secular democracies the beliefs of the religious should not prevail over the opinions of others. Thus we see the two ends of the spectrum of those who advocate for abortion. At one end you have Santosh's pragmatic concerns based on secular philosophy, political ideology and medical research. At the other end we see the advocacy of abortion as a human right, i.e. at the whim of the mother. I can at least see Santosh's point of view. However, I cannot see abortion as a human right in the conventional sense since the rights of unborn humans are missing from the equation. I don't think Santosh disagrees that a naturally conceived embryo under normal circumstances evolves into a fetus and eventually into a human being with full legal personhood by any definition. In addition, whereas EMBRYONIC stem cell research doesn't seem to have produced the same spectacular results as adult stem cell research, there are thousands of embryos left unused as an unintended consequence of artificial fertilization procedures, which provides the anti-abortionists with a dilemma they would rather not face. What do we do with these? Store them until hell freezes over or use them, i.e. kill them for embryonic stem cell research. The only other alternative is to kill them period, which makes no sense at all. This is an impass, not for the Catholic Church as an institution, which opposes any artificial means of reproduction, but for everyone else who believes that an embryo is a human life. The status quo is that these are being used for embryonic stem cell research. The secularists have taken care of their interests by making up definitions based on brain activity, consciousness, will, etc. which Santosh has described quite vividly. While these traits are not to be found in an embryo, they evolve as the fetus develops, and well before a live birth. These definitions have found legal acceptance in all secular countries and I wouldn't worry too much about any significant regression in the status quo. On the other hand, as we are seeing in Europe, there are pro-abortionists pushing the envelope outward. For some reason these pro-abortionists cannot bring themselves to be as passionate about developing better organized systems for adoption in the case of unwanted pregnancies. For the rest of u
Re: [Goanet] IS KILLING UNBORN BABIES A HUMAN RIGHT ?
Here are my responses to some comments in this thread. --- On Wed, 12/30/09, Gabriel de Figueiredo wrote: > > So in your opinion, when does an embryo begin to "possess a living and > >functioning brain" and thus become a sentient being, > >From a neurophysiological standpoint a rudimentary brain begins functioning at >10 weeks of gestation, as measured by the initiation of electrical activity. >Cerebral cortical activity begins at 22 weeks of gestation. > >the killing of which would be counted as murder? > Medical abortion is a legal medical procedure important for saving the life of the mother in some medical conditions. It should never be criminalized. The debate about personhood has no bearing on this issue, just as it has no bearing on the issue of killing of military and civilian lives in war, judicial executions and killing in self-defense. --- On Wed, 12/30/09, Mario Goveia wrote: > > You are clearly expressing an ideological or political or > pragmatic philosophy when you say, "The vast majority of > medical professionals want to use embryonic stem cells for > saving lives through medical research." > It is a pragmatic philosophy informed by scientific facts and real life problems in the medical field and in society. It is also a political philosophy driven by the principle that in a secular democracy the beliefs of any particular religion should not be imposed on all people through government action or by the will of the majority. Otherwise cow slaughter would be criminalized in India. Cheers, Santosh
Re: [Goanet] IS KILLING UNBORN BABIES A HUMAN RIGHT ?
"Averthan" wrote: > > The vast majority of medical opinion holds that a human > embryo or foetus is a distinct human person. This should be > obvious to anyone with common sense. > Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:02:46 -0800 (PST) From: Santosh Helekar This is pure nonsense. The term "human person" is a religious term. The vast majority of medical opinion has not coalesced around its use. The vast majority of medical professionals want to use embryonic stem cells for saving lives through medical research. The vast majority of medical professionals want to keep medical abortions legal for saving the lives of mothers. From the non-religious philosophical standpoint, a person is an entity capable of perception, thought and willed action. Modern science tells us that these things are possible only if that entity possesses a living and functioning brain. An embryo does not have a brain developed enough for this. Mario observes: Santosh, Since when did the personal opinions of a "vast majority" of professional people become a "scientific" conclusion? Are you trying to deny that genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception as a simple DNA test of an embryo would be able to distinguish it from a non-living thing? You are clearly expressing an ideological or political or pragmatic philosophy when you say, "The vast majority of medical professionals want to use embryonic stem cells for saving lives through medical research." Most laws on abortion make exceptions when the choice is between the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child and it is common sense that should dictate such a tragic decision based on the odds of survival. You may want to deny the humanity of an embryo for your own reasons and consider the fetus a human person at a later stage, but even you or science cannot deny what happens to a normally conceived embryo that is left alone. Quibbling about when you think an embryo becomes a human person when the alternative through an abortion is for that same embryo to not become that same human person at all, seems nonsensical to someone with a philosophy different from yours.
Re: [Goanet] IS KILLING UNBORN BABIES A HUMAN RIGHT ?
AFAIC, in my layman understanding, the process towards building a living person commences the moment cell-division begins. A plan is already laid out at that moment (I could say that the DNA/RNA and other chemistry has been mapped out at that point in time). A natural abortion might take place if that work in progress halts for some reason or another, a process, you well know, is known as a miscarriage. So in your opinion, when does an embryo begin to "possess a living and functioning brain" and thus become a sentient being, the killing of which would be counted as murder? BTW, remember, there was a time when the atom was considered indivisible, and the earth considered to be flat ... Gabriel. - Original Message > From: Santosh Helekar > To: estb. 1994!Goa's premiere mailing list > Sent: Wed, 30 December, 2009 10:02:46 AM > Subject: Re: [Goanet] IS KILLING UNBORN BABIES A HUMAN RIGHT ? > > From the > non-religious philosophical standpoint, a person is an entity capable of > perception, thought and willed action. Modern science tells us that these > things > are possible only if that entity possesses a living and functioning brain. An > embryo does not have a brain developed enough for this. > > Cheers, > > Santosh __ See what's on at the movies in your area. Find out now: http://au.movies.yahoo.com/session-times/
Re: [Goanet] IS KILLING UNBORN BABIES A HUMAN RIGHT ?
"Averthan" wrote: > > The vast majority of medical opinion holds that a human > embryo or foetus is a distinct human person. This should be > obvious to anyone with common sense. > This is pure nonsense. The term "human person" is a religious term. The vast majority of medical opinion has not coalesced around its use. The vast majority of medical professionals want to use embryonic stem cells for saving lives through medical research. The vast majority of medical professionals want to keep medical abortions legal for saving the lives of mothers. From the non-religious philosophical standpoint, a person is an entity capable of perception, thought and willed action. Modern science tells us that these things are possible only if that entity possesses a living and functioning brain. An embryo does not have a brain developed enough for this. Cheers, Santosh
[Goanet] IS KILLING UNBORN BABIES A HUMAN RIGHT ?
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 00:04:03 -0500 From: "Averthan" Keeping aside the legal conundrum for the jurists to unravel, it is important that we consider the ethical and social implications of the claim that women have a right to arbitrarily terminate their pregnancies, and that, therefore, the State has a duty to provide them with all the facilities required for this purpose. Mario observes: Is there a legal conundrum in this case given the assurances of sovereignty in the treaties forming the EU? Averthan wrote: The vast majority of medical opinion holds that a human embryo or foetus is a distinct human person. This should be obvious to anyone with common sense. Mario observes: This obviously excludes the three Irish women, who have probably convinced themselves of the extreme feminist position that the foetus is an unviable tissue mass, even though we now know it already has the DNA of a human being. These women have taken this to another level. Even though they have the option of having an abortion in Britain, they are demanding that all the citizens of Ireland, regardless of their own closely held beliefs in favor of life, subsidize the desire of the few to abort their foetuses. Averthan wrote: Without getting involved in any technical debates, it is obvious that an unborn baby is a human person with rights and privileges like any other human person. Mario observes: I hope you are not oblivious to the fact that there are many men and women who do not think this is so obvious. Averthan wrote: The inexorable logic of permitting murder is that that society is doomed to become a society which condones, and even actively promotes, the murder of the elderly, who are considered to be a drag on society, of the physically disabled, the mentally challenged and the economically disprivileged. Mario responds: This is already happening in subtle ways especially in countries that have health care systems run by socialist bureaucrats. Averthan writes: The problem starts with the basic disrespect for human life. Humankind has not yet learned that all life is sacred, specially human life, which represents the pinnacle of evolution. Mario responds: There is a win-win option for women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy for whatever reason - the choice of adoption by the numerous couples who are unable to conceive. This option strangely gets lost in the shuffle in the emotional debate over abortion rights.
[Goanet] IS KILLING UNBORN BABIES A HUMAN RIGHT ?
IS KILLING UNBORN BABIES A HUMAN RIGHT ? Averthanus L. D'Souza. An interesting case has come into prominence in Europe very recently. Three Irish women who had to go to Britain to procure the termination of their pregnancies are filing a suit before the European Court of Human Rights challenging the Irish Constitution, which protects all human life from the moment of conception. Their contention is that the lack of abortion facilities in Ireland breaches the human rights of women to terminate their pregnancies. There are two distinct legal problems involved in this case. One, whether the women have a right to terminate their pregnancies; and two, whether the European Court of Human Rights can overturn the Constitution of one of its member States. The Irish Constitution guarantees to its citizens the right to life, from the moment of conception till the time of natural death. Consistent with this basic principle, any services which are intended to terminate human life at any stage are banned, except in special circumstances duly provided by law. There are no "abortion clinics" in Ireland where women can obtain elective abortions. Those who want to have abortions usually travel to Britain, where such services are available. The present case presents not only a legal challenge, but also a challenge to the cultural and moral values which have defined European civilization and tradition. This case comes just two months after Ireland became a signatory to the Treaty of Lisbon. The Lisbon Treaty came into operation on December 1st 2009. The Republic of Ireland signed the Treaty hesitatingly only after receiving assurances that it's Constitution would be respected and protected, and that no actions of the European Union would in any way infringe upon the rights guaranteed to it's citizens by the Irish Constitution. The case filed by the three Irish women poses a direct challenge to the Irish Constitution, and it will be interesting to see how the European Court of Human Rights will deal with this matter. The decision of the European Court of Human Rights will have very far-reaching consequences, not only for the members of the European Union, but also for other countries which are not part of the European Union. It is commonly understood that the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community which have been updated by the Treaty of Lisbon do not, in any way, infringe upon the sovereign rights of the member states of the E.U. All the institutions of the E.U. whether political, economic or social are only set up with the explicit consent of the member States. There are no "overriding powers" given to the E.U. A cursory reading of the terms of the Treaty of Lisbon reveals that what undergirds the Treaty are the principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality (Article 3 b). In the common man's language, this means that the E.U. pledges itself not to override the laws, structures, or institutions of its Member States. In fact, it explicitly avers that the E.U. will only act in those areas on which the Member States have authorized it to act. Article 2 A, section 5 reads: "In certain areas and under the conditions laid down in the Treaties, the Union shall have competence to carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States, without thereby superseding their competence in these areas. Legally binding acts of the Union adopted on the basis of the provisions of the Treaties relating to these areas shall not entail harmonization of Member States laws or regulations." To the (legally) untrained mind of a layman it appears that the claim of the three Irish women that the non-availability of abortion services in Ireland constitutes a violation of their 'human rights' is not only legally untenable, but is also ethically specious. The ethico-cultural dimension. Keeping aside the legal conundrum for the jurists to unravel, it is important that we consider the ethical and social implications of the claim that women have a right to arbitrarily terminate their pregnancies, and that, therefore, the State has a duty to provide them with all the facilities required for this purpose. The vast majority of medical opinion holds that a human embryo or foetus is a distinct human person. This should be obvious to anyone with common sense. A human foetus is not a cat or a dog or a mouse - it is human, and will eventually develop into a fully recognizable human being. Therefore the act of destroying a human foetus is clearly an act of destroying a human being. The second consideration is also clear. The embryo or the foetus is a distinct being, and not a "part" of a woman's body. The woman only hosts the foetus until it is time for it to develop on its own. Nature has provided all (female) mammals with wombs to enable the embryos to develop into foetuses and the
