The California Collection/TheCaliforniaCollection.cdr/his092/personhd.lzh/PERSONHD.TXT

Text File | 1991-07-09 | 20.6 KB | 400 lines

ISS:Interviews on the Abortion issue from The John Ankerberg Show

   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....

   The John Ankerberg Show P.O. Box 8977 Chattanooga, TN 37411