Who won this argument about abortion?

I was cleaning out some old emails and found these exchanges. Rather than just trash the information, I thought: "Why not post it for you guys just in case you run into another situation like it?"

INITIAL QUESTION ASKED BY SOMEONE ON A PRIVATE LIST OF PROFESSIONALS on 12/31/08:

"Why, generally speaking, are those who favor abortion also opposed to the death penalty?"

FROM "LEFTY":

There's actually no relationship between the two. Abortion relieves a woman of an unwanted pregnancy. The death penalty kills a human being. (A fetus, on the other hand, is not a human being.)

I'm basically against the death penalty, except for MAJOR CRIMES. These aren't back alley murders, but really major crimes, ones in which the death penalty would actually be a deterrent. An example: if the CEO of Exxon had been executed after the Exxon Valdez oil spill disaster, every oil tanker in the world would have immediately been made double (or triple) hulled, to prevent a similar catastrophe in the future. Now, THAT'S a real deterrent!

FROM ME:

Science and Abortion: The Fetus Is Human
https://sites.google.com/a/georgiasouthern.edu/etmcmull/science-and-abortion-the-fetus-is-human [link updated 5/25/13]

FROM "LEFTY":

Oh, c'mon.

For starters, the man is a professor of history. He is not a medical person, or a medical ethicist. I could not see that he has any connections with the medical field at all, although the article does reflect a connection with James Dobson.

Sorry, there's nothing there.

FROM ME:

The article was written by a professor of history who was commenting on and discussing the work of Dr. Lejeune who has an M.D. from the University of Paris, and a Ph.D. in genetics at the Sorbonne, Faculty of Science...here's more about him:

www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/467/43/

FROM "LEFTY":

According to the article the courts have not ruled on the cited case. So what do we have? An embryo, which is not such a unique phenomena because it happens millions of times a day. It is more of a biological process, or the result of a biological process.

And yet, there are other biological processes that also occur with about the same frequency. For example (as repugnant as it may seem - but true), a cancer, or a tumor. Neither of them, in the short run anyway, can live outside their host. Therefore, it would seem, that at least in the short run, they are both nothing more than biological occurrences.

(Then, from the medical ethicist.)

The cancer analogy is interesting. The similarity between them points to exactly what we've been arguing about -- they are both unique, they both grow from single cells, they both can be very complex. So uniqueness, origin, and complexity aren't sufficient for moral status. Rather, I'd argue it's the ability to feel pain, and be conscious of that pain, that makes a difference. Cancers don't have that. Embryos don't. Being able to feel pain isn't the same as being conscious of that pain.

FROM ME:

From Dr. Ranalli's report (he is a neurologist at the University of Toronto and Advisory Board member of the deVeber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research.)

By every measure, the fetus from 16-19 weeks reacts to a painful stimulus in a manner consistent with the perception of pain. Support for Dr. Glover's position came from Canadian researcher Dr. Ken Craig who has spent over 15 years studying pain in premature babies at the University of British Columbia...In fact, as revealed by other work, the late second-trimester fetus, like the similar-aged premature newborn, likely develops the capacity to be more sensitive to pain than a full-term baby, or even an adult. This is because the inhibitory, pain-modifying network lags in embryologic development behind the establishment of the pain system.

www.nrlc.org/news/2000/NRL09/ranalli.html

THE END (AND IT WAS).