The California Collection/TheCaliforniaCollection.cdr/his095/abort25.arj/ABORT25.TXT

Text File | 1990-12-29 | 22KB | 443 lines

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The following is a transcript of the February 11, 1990 telecast
of The John Ankerberg Show.  This transcript was taken from
audio tape, so misspellings of individuals' names may occur.
For that, I sincerely apologize.

JOHN: Science tells us that your life began the same way everyone
  else's did.  When your father's sperm united with the egg from
  your mother, your life began, and your development proceeded
  quite rapidly.

  Today, the abortion debate centers around that period of time
  during which you were growing and developing in the womb.
  There is no question that you were alive, or that you were
  true human life.  But that is not enough for some.  THEY say at
  THAT point, you were still not a person, entitled to protection
  under the Constitution.  They argue that you were missing
  something, and more development must take place BEFORE you
  could arrive at that special moment they call "personhood."

  But at what point is personhood reached, and who decides?  And
  why is THAT point special?  Listen to Janet Benshuff, the
  director of the ACLU's program on abortion, and Gloria Alred, a
  prominent feminist attorney, explain this ProChoice point of
  view:

JANET: Well, first of all, uh, I agree with the Supreme Court in
  Roe versus Wade which stated that the fetus is not a PERSON,
  um, under our American Constitution.  So that the fetus does
  not have the protections of law that you and I have.

GLORIA: As to the abortion issue, the fetus is not considered a
  person under the Constitution of the United States, and
  therefore, ah, has no rights whatsoever, because only a PERSON
  has rights under the United States Constitution.  And that
  person is the mother.

INTERVIEWER: If the fetus could be scientifically PROVEN to be a
  person, um, a human being, would the ACLU step in to defend
  its rights?

JANET:  Well, we KNOW what the fetus is biologically and
  scientifically.  I don't think anything has changed in the last
  twenty years.  We know that the fetus IS a potential human
  being, we know that the fetus is alive; we're not denigrating
  the status of the fetus.  But you must remember that the fetus
  is part of a woman, and that the ... the woman is the ... the
  person that is directly affected by the pregnancy and by the
  childbearing.  So, there isn't going to be any scientific
  advance that's going to make the American Civil Liberties Union
  change their position at all.  In fact, I think, you know, we
  we become... yearly ... very ... much more strongly committed
  to knowing that ... in order for women's equality to go
  forward, women must be able to control their own bodies.

JOHN:  Those who are ProChoice, usually say that the following
  characteristics must be present before a growing child
  reaches "personhood": first, the child must be viable.  That
  is, the unborn child must be able to exist and live on its own
  outside of the mother's womb.  Second, the child must have a
  regular heartbeat.  Third, the brain of the child should be
  emitting brainwaves.  Fourth, there must be movement.  And,
  fifth, the child must be able to feel pain.

  In our last program, we saw that if THESE criteria for
  personhood are used, children in the womb arrive at this stage
  AT LEAST by twenty weeks of time.  But then, why is it we do
  not protect children in the womb who have reached this stage
  of development?  Both ProChoice and ProLife people should
  realize this is common ground, and AGREE that abortion is wrong
  AFTER twenty weeks, since ALL the criteria for "personhood"
  have been reached.

  But let us go one step further.  There are two problems for
  those who argue the ProChoice position and want to define
  "personhood" using these criteria.

  The first is: Do we really want the State in our society to
  define "personhood" by what a person does?  Or do we want the
  State to define people by what they are, inherently?  That is,
  living, human beings.  Listen to Dr. John Warrick Montgomery,
  an attorney and practicing trial lawyer in both America and
  England.


DR. MONTGOMERY: Ah, you know, if you DON'T define the beginning
   of human life at the moment of conception, you will
   necessarily define it functionally at some other juncture; it
   will be defined in terms of WHAT the kid or the adult is able
   to DO.  It won't be in terms of what the person IS, but what
   the person is able to PRODUCE.  Ah, for example, once his
   brainwaves start operating, then he's a person; or once his
   heart beats, he's a person; or once he can ACCOMPLISH this
   that or the other thing, he is a valuable member of society.
   Now, the necessary consequence of this is, that, ah, the
   minute that the society no longer values what YOU do or what
   I do, then that same society may want to get rid of US.

JOHN:  Why is it that it's not acceptable to use human functions
   as a measurement to determine when "personhood" exists and
   when life should be protected?  Well, if we define personhood
   by what someone DOES -- that is, by their brainwaves or
   heartbeat, CONSCIOUSNESS, feeling of pain, movement, or any
   OTHER function -- we must remember that sometimes, even full
   grown ADULTS do not exhibit these characteristics.

   Why?  Well, because such functions may be absent in adults as
   a result of illness or accident.  If so, let me ask you this:
   During such times, would anyone argue that adults are not full
   "persons"?  Of course not.  And if PERSONHOOD is defined by
   one's ability to communicate, then think about this: would
   that mean that before children learn to speak, they should not
   be considered "persons"?  As an adult, if you experience a
   stroke, or you lose consciousness and you are unable to talk,
   will that mean that the State no longer needs to consider you
   a person?  What if someone defines "personhood" on the basis
   of how well one reasons, or on a certain level of IQ score?
   These levels of human function could open up the door for the
   State to exclude many thousands of adults from the category of
   "personhood"--- including the nonliterate, the comotose, the
   senile, and the retarded.

   Again, the MAJOR problem with using any of these criteria as a
   benchmark for defining true "personhood" is that there will
   always be times later on in our adult lives when such criteria
   can be absent... and at those times we KNOW human life clearly
   exists.

   This is just one of many reasons why the Supreme Court was
   wrong in Roe versus Wade.  They made the DANGEROUS statement
   that a human being is of --- quote --- a COMPELLING interest
   to the State --- endquote, ONLY when it has the capability of
   --- quote --- MEANINGFUL life --- endquote.

   Now philosophers have always warned us to watch out when
   somebody else defines what is SUPPOSED to be "meaningful" for
   US.  It is a very subjective thing.  The Court should have
   ruled that a human being is ALWAYS of compelling interest to
   the State, WHENEVER human life exists.  But in Roe versus
   Wade, they did not.  Instead, they defined "personhood" by
   what a person DOES, not by what he IS.  The Supreme Court
   ruled that a child in the womb will NOT be considered a
   "person" until it can first DO certain things; namely, PROVE
   that it can live on its own outside of its mother's womb.  And
   until that point, even though the child is alive and clearly
   human, his life can be snuffed out.  Why?

   Because the Court chose an arbitrary benchmark -- a functional
   definition that they insisted that the child must first do
   before they would recognize him as a person.  I'd like you to
   listen right now to Mr. Pat Truman, the former legal counsel
   for Americans United for Life, who during a debate argued this
   point with Doctor [unintelligible] Cussar [sp], who was at
   that time performing abortions at the KU med center in Kansas
   City.


TRUMAN:  Well, let me ask you this then: BEFORE that time that
  you define it is at --- whatever you're defining it --- is it
  alright to have an abortion?

CUSSAR:  Yes, before that ---

TRUMAN:  --- and, at how many weeks do you as a doctor, will you
   do abortions?  Do you do them -- up unto what stage of
   pregnancy?

CUSSAR:  Okay, for ME, and, up to the Supreme Court or whatever
   it is, for me when it could obtain the stage of viability...

TRUMAN:  How many weeks?

CUSSAR:  The stage of viability is set now at twenty-four weeks.

TRUMAN:  So, when you saw the picture there of the eighteen week
   child that had the arms, the leg, the head, et cetera, ah,
   sucking his thumb, would you destroy that life in any ---

CUSSAR:  [unintelligible interruption]

TRUMAN:  --- well, I won't use those terms --- would you abort
   that child?

CUSSAR:  It's not viable yet, it cannot survive outside.

TRUMAN:  So, your criteria is ... is really whether or not it can
   survive outside the womb, and prior to that time, uh, if it
   cannot, you will allow an abortion, and perform it yourself.

CUSSAR:  Sure, I would.

TRUMAN:  The point I wanted to make with respect to viability is
   this: that your ... ah, um, criteria to determine whether that
   life -- or whatever you want to call it --- will live or die
   is whether it can live outside the mother... whether it is,
   quote, viable.  Now that child is PERFECTLY viable inside the
   mother.  It can live until the time of natural birth and be
   born --- it's perfectly viable in its natural environment.
   You want to take it out of it's natural environment and say,
   "Will you live or not?  If you can live on your own, you're
   not, uh, you're viable and you can live; and if not, you can
   die."  Now, if you took me out of MY natural environment...
   you put me in a lake under water, I'm not viable.  Out of my
   natural environment, I'll die.

JOHN:  I believe it is far better to define personhood -- not in
   FUNCTIONAL terms, but in inherent terms.  Not by what you and
   I can DO, but by what you and I are.  As soon as human life
   exists, human life should be protected.  And science tells us,
   human life begins at fertilization.

   Now, the second problem with defining "personhood" according
   to a functional criteria, has to do with the definition of
   viability itself.

   Viability was defined by the Supreme Court in Roe versus Wade,
   as that period of time when the child could live on its own,
   outside of its mother's womb.  In 1973, the Court placed
   viability at 28 weeks to 24 weeks.  Until the baby reached
   viability, the Court stated that it did not consider the child
   to be a "person."  Today, science tells us that the Court's
   arbitrary placement of viability at 28 weeks to 24 weeks is
   wrong.  Thanks to the new technology, viability is now placed
   at between 19 to 20 weeks.  In the future, as technology
   progresses, the time of viability will eventually be pushed
   back to 12 weeks.  And finally, with the help of artificial
   wombs, to the point of conception itself.

   I'd like you to listen to Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a
   practicing obstetrician in New York City, who was a founder of
   the National Abortion Rights Action League, and formerly the
   director of the world's largest abortion clinic.

NATHANSON:  ... the problem with that, of course, is that
   viability is a very slippery concept.  Uh, viability in New
   York, for example, is different than it is in Zaire.  Um,
   viability is changing almost daily now, with new advances in
   neonatal technology, and technology in the nurseries.  So, in
   the last 15 years since Roe v. Wade, we've pushed viability
   back ah, at least 6 weeks; and there's every reason to believe
   that that pace will continue --  or even quicken, so that
   viability will be back to 12 weeks, ah, or so.

   So, viability is not a reliable indicator for us as to when to
   protect the unborn child.  SOME believe that that time
   should be when there are identifiable, human-type brain waves,
   and that time is variously estimated at 26 or so weeks.  Um,
   but again, you run into the problem of apparatus and
   technology.  If we had more precise instrumentation, there's
   every reason to believe that we could pick up brain waves, ah,
   earlier --- and, in fact, some Japanese investigators have
   picked them up at 8 weeks.  So, you know, I think to make a
   judgment as sweeping as "What is human?" ah, based upon, ah,
   these rather nebulous and essentially unreliable standards,
   um, is fruitless and ah, false.

JOHN:  Maybe you're wondering what criteria SHOULD be used to
   determine when full "personhood" begins?  At what point should
   a child be accorded all the rights and protection guaranteed
   under the Constitution?  Well, I believe science gives us the
   answer.

   Science tells us that life begins at fertilization.  And when
   human life is present, personhood is also present.  This is
   the only definition that safeguards life through all the
   stages of our existence.  That is, from fertilization to
   birth, from toddler to teenager, from middle age to old age.

   But are scientists convinced that life DOES begin at
   conception?  Listen to Dr. John Wilke, the president of the
   National Right to Life Committee; Dr. C. Everett Koop,
   formerly the Surgeon General of the United States; and,
   finally, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, whom we've already met:

WILKE:  Is this being human?  Yes, from the single cell stage.
   How do we know?  You get a microscope.  Forty-six human
   chromosomes.  This is not a carrot, this is not a rabbit, and
   this is a living human member of homosapiens --- this being is
   human.  Is this being sexed?  Yes, boy or girl from the single
   cell stage.  Is this being alive?  Well, of course this being
   is alive.  And growing.  Is this being unique?  Yes!  Never
   before in the history of the world, never again in the history
   of the world, will an individual be created who is exactly
   like this tiny, little male or female human.

KOOP:  I think that, uh, we have a very interesting phenomenon in
   this country, and that is the tremendous interest and
   enthusiasm about test tube babies. And anybody who knows about
   the birth of the first one, Louise Brown, uh, has to recognize
   that, ah, life begins at conception.  If you can put a sperm
   and an egg in a petri dish, and get a human being nine
   months later, with nothing being added to it except to put
   that fertilized egg back in its mother's uterus, you KNOW
   that life begins at conception.



INTERVIEWER:  But once they combine, the fertilized egg, it
   cannot exist in that test tube for more than three days.

NATHANSON:  Well, that's only a limitation of our technology; I
   can assure you that within five years, the sperm and the egg
   will be combined to form a human being in the test tube, and
   that person will be placed, not into someone's uterus, but
   into a life-support system, or another culture medium if you
   wish.  And it may very well be that within five or ten years
   the person in prenatal existence -- the unborn human -- will
   never know the inside of a mother's uterus.

   Ah, technology never stops.  It is moving forward inexorably
   ALL the time.  And so, for us to put artificial restraints and
   artificial limits on what we consider "life" -- at the
   beginning or at the end --- ah, is absurd and dangerous.  Ah,
   when one is talking about the beginning of life, one must talk
   about conception -- fertilization.

KOOP:  I think the world has known -- its biologists,
   anyway, that life begins at conception.  Ah, if you are a
   babboon, or a dove, or a fox --- it's only when you talk about
   the ah, most complicated of animals -- ah, the human being --
   that people get into this controversy about when life begins.

   Life begins, to biologists, at conception.

WILKE:  Yes, this tiny being is alive and growing.

   What is the opposite of alive?  Dead.

   What does abortion do?  Kill.

   This is human, alive, complete, and growing.

   You...did...not...come...FROM...a...single...fertilized...ovum.

   You ... once ... *WERE* ... a ... single, fertilized ovum.

   All you've done is grow up.

INTERVIEWER:  At what point do you feel the fetus should be
   considered a human being?

NATHANSON:  Well, we can't have points, you see; we've
   discovered that with the use of real-time ultrasound, we've
   been able to see the infant breathing in the uterus, ah, its
   heart beating, its thumb going into its mouth, and, as I say,
   um, participating in all the activities which we commonly
   associate with the human infant.

JOHN:  But what about those doctors who disagree?  Why is it that
   the American Medical Association supports the ProChoice
   position?  Listen to Doctor Bernard Towers, who's Professor of
   Anatomy, Psychiatry, and Pediatrics at UCLA, and an ADVOCATE
   of abortion "rights."  Doctor Bernard Nathanson will also
   comment on the time when SCIENCE says life begins.

INTERVIEWER:  Doctor Towers, when DOES human life begin?

TOWERS:  Well, that's a very strange question.  You see, it is
   quite clear that every cell in our bodies is alive.  Well, not
   every cell -- there are cells that are dying all the time, of
   course, but, ah, certainly the cells which provide the basis
   for the... for ... the newly developing ah, fertilized egg,
   THOSE cells, the egg itself and the sperm are living, human
   cells.

NATHANSON:  Ah, the sperm has only 23 chromosomes, and the egg
   has only 23 chromosomes; whereas every human being, including
   the human being that is formed at conception, has 46
   chromosomes.  So, in that sense, the sperm and the egg are not
   complete human beings.


TOWERS:  When they unite together, the product of that union is
   itself a living cell.  The whole question is whether from a
   scientific biological point of view one can say that a cell is
   a human being.  Or is a fellow citizen.  I personally think it
   is inappropriate.

NATHANSON:  Life in the uterus before birth is a smooth
   continuum; and, ah, in that sense, one cannot designate at
   some point when life begins.  There is no bar-mitzvah in the
   uterus.  It is merely life beginning when it really begins.

   Now, we've created it in the test tube; we've watched it
   start.  We have SEEN the spark struck in invitro
   fertilization, when the sperm meets the egg.  So that the
   question of when life begins is no longer metaphysical,
   theological, legal, moral, religious ... it is absolutely
   scientific now, and it has been established to begin at
   conception.

JOHN:  Now, I'd like you to listen to Mr. Patrick A. Truman,
   formerly the general counsel for Americans United for Life,
   who during a debate concerning abortion on our program (The
   John Ankerberg Show), told of how the state of Illinois was
   FORCED to deal with the scientific evidence in TRYING to pass
   their abortion regulations.

TRUMAN:  In 1975, Illinois passed a very lengthy abortion
   statute, regulating abortion as best they could within the
   confines of that Supreme Court decision of 1973.  The first
   section of the Illinois law passed by the almost unanimous
   general assembly of the state of Illinois, was a declaration
   that it recognized that human life begins at conception; and
   that in Illinois, the unborn child from the moment of
   conception was a legal person and a human being.

   Now, it was the American Civil Liberties Union that challenged
   that entire law, and our organization was involved in
   defending it.  And, the ACLU said you have nothing but a
   religious belief to back up that statement that "life begins
   at conception."  And, we introduced an affidavit from a, ah,
   professor of medicine, detailing NINETEEN text books on the
   subject of embryology, USED in medical schools today, which
   universally agreed that human life begins at conception.
   Because that's what those textbooks AGREE, ah, that's when the
   textbooks agree that human life begins.

   And the court didn't strike that down.  The court COULDN'T
   strike that down because there was a logical, biological, ah,
   BASIS for that law.  So what we're talking about here is not
   this doctor's belief that it is not human -- and so, he
   permits himself to do abortions up to 22 weeks --- it's not
   the basis of one's INDIVIDUAL beliefs upon which laws, in this
   respect, are made; these laws prohibiting abortion have a very
   clear scientific basis.

JOHN:  Let me ask you: Wouldn't you agree that the only
   definition of when life begins is the scientific definition:
   that life begins at conception?  And wouldn't you agree, that
   the only definition of when life begins that safeguards human
   life during ALL the stages of our existence is the one that is
   based on what we ARE, not what we DO?

   The moment human life exists, personhood exists, and SHOULD be
   protected.  I hope that you agree.

   Maybe you are wondering if we will deal with the question:
   Doesn't the woman have the right to control her own body?
   Well, in our next program, we will answer this and other
   questions surrounding this sensitive issue....