-----------------------------------------------------------------
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....
../