Perfection in the womb
Sir: In his letter (23 January) replying to mine on foetal development, Quentin Crewe accuses me of 'waffle', then waffles himself about calling me 'Ms' — though that is not my own choice of title. But he could tell from my first name that I am not a 'Mr', which is obviously the only title to indicate a proper thinking person with the right to express a viewpoint.
He substitutes for my list of the qualities that give human beings their status and rights the one qualification of simply being alive. But that would prevent him from killing to eat, for even vegetables are alive.
He then says that, since he suffers from muscular dystrophy (for which he has my true sympathy), he might have been aborted had this genetic condition been susceptible to foetal diagnosis before he was born. At the risk of seeming hard- hearted, I must ask: So what? The entity that would have been aborted would have known nothing about it, and, of course, would not have been his present self, with his sense of identity, his stake in life, his aspirations, and his personal relationships. In fact, it would never have become a person at all. In that event, he would admittedly not exist now — but perhaps his perfectly healthy brother, who was never even conceived because he himself sur- vived, would have had the chance to live. And if every woman carrier of muscular dystrophy were to abort all her female foetuses (which would otherwise develop into carriers) and keep only those male foetuses found to be free of the gene, this distressing disease would be eliminated (except for mutants) in a single generation. Similarly with other sex-linked genetic diseases.
The next letter, from M. A. Lynch,
LETTERS
states that my description of a fertilised egg as 'a cluster of undifferentiated cells' is `quite unscientific'. I doubt if she could find a reputable biologist to agree with her.
She then goes on to pursue the same fallacious argument as Mr Crewe — treat- ing potential as though it were actuality and points out that an aborted foetus might have become a Shakespeare or a Miche- langelo. (Equally, of course, it might have become a Hitler or a Michael Ryan.And to ensure the development of every potential Shakespeare or Michelangelo, there would have to be a total ban on birth control.) Finally, however, he argues that even 'an ordinary man or woman' is deserving of `love', which I would interpret as consid- eration and compassion — the very motivation for my wishing to avoid con- demning seriously defective babies to life in the first place.
Barbara Smoker
President, National Secular Society, 6 Stanstead Grove, London SE6
Previous page
