Abortion : Différence entre versions

Addressed to the wife of Jorge Barrenechea and himself whom we make depositary.

Dear Mr Jorge:

Over the last few days, we have been asked by you about the very diverse themes. Exhibiting each of them would take up an enormous amount of paper. But we seemed to observe a high level of emotion in the question concerning the voluntary termination of the gestation phase of the nascent human.

We know that among Earth's OENMII this question generates high levels of emotional hypersensitivity and that you would like to have our opinion on it, thinking that it would help clarify the nebulous polemic aroused on OYAAGAA concerning the legitimacy or illegality of this termination.

First and foremost, we wish to reiterate with unequivocal clarity that we must not interfere in your ethical debates. Our concepts are valid only for our community on the Cold Star UMMMO and should not be used to establish moral models of behavior among humans on the Cold Star Earth. To understand our moral idea on the problem, you must first renounce unconditional submission to our doctrine.

The only way to focus the question will be: What would we do if, with our current bio-ethical schemes, we were faced with a situation similar to Earth's (high demographic expansion index, high risk for mother and conceived child in the embryological phase, bleak prospects for the future life of the unborn child, poor biotechnical level in gestation assistance, ideological pressures of a financial, religious and political nature...)?

To understand our moral idea concerning the voluntary destruction of the diploid zygote, or embryo or foetus during its uterine implantation in the YIIE (Woman) we must first clarify some basic concepts about life, bioethics and above all transcendent factors linked to the organism.

We must point out that the assumption of termination of human pregnancy is virtually unknown on UMMO in our time. Biological control over the child's genome, our possibilities of assisting the course of gestation through biotechnology (which is never done "In Vitro", i.e. outside a matrix in the YIE, despite the possibility of developing the being in gestation not only in laboratory equipment but also implanted in a real biological matrix separate from the woman, which are perfectly viable for our embryologists) rules out the whole range of risks leading to teratological deformation in the unborn being and pathological damage to the mother.

The situation on OYAAUMMO is in no way comparable to that on OYAAGAA (This word means Cold Star of the Square. This is what we call the Earth because the first electromagnetic signals we received from you were reminiscent of a square).

We believe that the theme of the freely induced death of an unborn being when it has not yet emerged from the maternal womb is the subject of passionate controversy on Earth, arousing cries of pain from some OEMMII and indignation from others for the lack of freedom of the YIIE (FEMALE) to dispose of the fruit of her womb, because all sides of the ideological dispute have their share of reason.

First, let's define a bioethical principle. Any consummation of the death of a being in gestation (1) (in any phase of the being in gestation; from its diploid zygote state to its developed foetal phase) is rejectable as a violation of the laws of WOA (GOD) insofar as this annihilation is carried out frivolously and without necessity, when there is no fear of harmful consequences in the future of the being to be born and when the pregnancy was willed and assumed before fertilization was consummated. If birth and gestation will not have other harmful consequences for the mother, the father or society, of a higher order than those deriving from harm to a negentropic process such as embryogenesis.

(Note 1) By "in gestation" we mean: not the mother, but the fruit, since the embryo conceives the entire structure of the oemmi

We believe that the discussion between you centers on two basic concepts. You are working out very murky definitions of the two notions of LIFE and PERSON. which is interpreted differently by secularists and by religious and believing humans.

For us, life is defined as a molecular system or network which follows a negentropic principle (entropy decreasing over time) and which, for its entropic and negentropic environmental control reactions, uses codification and information engrammed at the quantum, biomolecular and mesophysical levels (quantum level on Krypton noble gas atoms, biomolecular level on proteins and nucleic acids, mesophysical level on neural micro-networks).

Every living being is in one-to-one correspondence with two extreme Universes in the Cosmos family, with light speeds of C0 C1 C2 C3 ......... Cn (these extreme Universes being of zero mass and infinite mass respectively). Communication with the zero-mass Universe is only possible for OEMII. This is precisely how we differentiate ourselves from NON-HUMAN organisms, such as a protozoan or a feline, a spore or a kidney, because we don't apply the term HUMAN to an organ like the human spleen or lung, but to the entire OEMII. For us, an isolated organ such as the nerve trunk, the cerebellum or the gall bladder constitute networks similar to a mammal or a conifer. Life is therefore a holistic concept that integrates a material process, which grows richer with increasing complexity, entities whose substrate capable of engramming information is housed in two other cosmoses, and atomic micro-networks whose function is to decode and encode. Transmitting and receiving intercosmic information. The common denominator of all these factors is negentropy. We could, however, attempt a simplified definition of LIFE

LIFE IS NEGENTROPY

DEATH IS ENTROPY

Perhaps the most obvious characteristics of a LIVING biophysical NETWORK are Firstly: to store information at the MESOPHYSICAL and MICROBIOLOGICAL levels. Second: TO REPRODUCE ITSELF by its own means. Third: REACT to the environment after capturing the information. Third: PROCESS information. Fourth: METABOLIZE matter from the outside.

The concept of PERSON has never been defined on UMMO. It's a notion that originated on Earth and surprised us when we came to your cold star. That's right. In the scientific field, there are very diaphanous concepts that can be understood by a Spaniard, an Anglo-Saxon or one of my brothers from UMMO. For example, a series of phonemes such as "MICROONDES" "MICROWAVE" "(OOAYE SAUUA)" are words which in various languages have a definite meaning. Oscillations with very short periods and centimetric or metric wavelengths.

A physicist from any country on Earth will have no difficulty in understanding these and other concepts such as "electron" or "rotational". Any biologist will have a sufficiently clear idea of what is meant by "blastomer" or "cord". These are not conventional concepts, but biunivocal correspondences between words and real physicobiological entities.

But the semantic concept differs when it comes to symbols, conventional codes or legal concepts. Do you use RED, VIOLET, ROSACE OR LILAC as a symbol of danger? Germany's Nazis used the swastika and the legal concepts of "person" "abuse" "spouse" "airspace" "natural law" are so vague and evanescent that they receive antagonistic treatment under various legislative codes separated in space and time.

In this way, a concept such as PERSON cannot be defined on its own without a commission of expert jurists or theologians AGREEing to give it a capricious meaning in a specific time and place.

It is here that the "being in gestation" is considered by certain legislations as an "object of Law" and is denied any legal status in other legal frameworks. Are we, the brothers of UMMO, persons for the jurists of the Earth? It's obvious that we don't have a legal personality, just as insects and fungi don't have one. Any Earth scientist, if he captured us, could make us the object of his biological experiments as if we were guinea pigs without breaking any laws, because in the eyes of the legislator, OEMMII from another planetary star do not enter into his concept of persons.

Any discussion of whether or not the fetus is a PERSON is as sterile and incongruous as starting a controversy over "danger is red or lilac". Religious jurists will assert that the embryo is a "Person", influenced by their religious faith, and secular materialistic legislators will advocate that it cannot be granted this status until the unborn being emerges from the uterine cavity. The subject would not be exhausted because there would be a generalized consensus for or against it, as it would continue to be converted into a convention with no scientific correlation,

Nor does it shed any light to define the being in gestation in terms associated with HUMAN LIFE or NON-LIFE.

HUMAN LIFE is any molar or molecular portion of human tissue (a muscle or colon are molar portions. A few epithelial cells are molecular portions). We understand a human cell to be one in whose cell nucleus 46 human chromosomes exist.

But one of our fingers or a cell in the connective tissue of the dermis contains human chromosomes, and no one doubts that we can remove a thumb or extract a simple biopsy without violating the moral law.

If the objection is raised that the embryo or foetus in the mother's womb retains in its nuclei genomes distinct from those of the mother, the question will continue unanswered, because in the case of a kidney transplant or a portion of epidermis from another person, the chromosomal load is distinct. Will the law be violated by accusing of murder the person who, for clinical reasons, removes the implanted tissue?

As parabolic examples of the absurdity of these arguments based on the concept of human life, imagine two situations that could arise in the future of the Earth if biotechnology were sufficiently developed. Suppose they extract a cell from the body of a YIEE prisoner who is serving a crime committed by deprivation of liberty, by means of a biopsy. Then, by halving her chromosomal load and selecting chromosomes, they merge the semi-genome with that of a male spermatozoon within a foreign egg cell devoid of DNA. This is followed by a maturation process in the laboratory and the next act, by means of a simple intervention, with prior anesthesia and conditioning of the female soma to prevent immunological rejection, they implant the embryo in the prisoner's uterus.

Will she be breaking the law if, once free, she removes the unwanted child?

In another supposition, a biotechnician manages to synthesize in the laboratory, as we have done, a large chain of genes corresponding to that of a human being. For many years we on Ummo have been able to melt down a large nucleotide sequence to synthesize human beings, although in practice the process is reduced to biotechnical studies with no further consequences. It's obvious that this scientist can inject this charge into an ovum, which in short constitutes the structure of a diploid zygote.

Would there be a serious bioethical problem if the scientist who succeeds in creating human chromosomes subsequently destroys his work?

In this way, the controversy between believers and skeptics in the Earth's Social Network is quite insoluble, as we focus on problems such as whether or not the fetus is a person, whether or not it is a human Life. But for men who accept a religious creed, the problem centers on another important question. When does the soul become associated with the unborn being? At the moment of fertilization? When the former zygote becomes morula? When the various tissues of the embryo begin to differentiate?

Some believers on Earth think it's clear that the zygote is linked to the soul. This is a rash assertion, given the state of scientific and theological research, which is based solely on scholastic speculation without any empirical foundation. But it's also clear that for the agnostic, this concept is devoid of content. The Dualist believes in the existence of the soul. The monist takes into account abundant evidence that what believers call mind is no more than a mental process that can be explained through data processing via the brain's neural network, and that consciousness is an emergence derived from the complexity of the system.

In this way, the hypothesis that the embryo is a complete human being with the legal status of a Person constitutes an act of faith that cannot be imposed as such on non-believers by dogmatic believers. That's why we tell you that polemics are sterile and lead to no solution endorsed by science.

We can scientifically prove that a few hours after the formation of the diploid zygote (fertilization), the OEMBUAAUU (O) is formed, a network of Krypton gas (a sequence of atoms not linked by valence connections that puts the unborn being in contact with its BUUAUAA (B) SOUL. For even before that, he had a connection as a living entity

which was, along with the infinitely massive Universe that engrams information, supplied to all living beings in the multicosmos.

This assertion seems to vindicate the believers, and so it does in part; but not before it has been amply qualified.

In the first place, and in contrast to you, we affirm that every living being, from the viroid to the complex mammal like an orangutan on Earth, including every cell in a human being, is associated by a one-to-one relationship with a SOUL, although only the OEMII can connect with it via Krypton's transceivers.

On the other hand, our concept of Soul is singularly different from that of scholastic and neo-scholastic thinkers. For them and other believers of different religions, the soul or spirit is a timeless, adimensional immaterial entity that cannot therefore BE in a space-time continuum and therefore has no Matter Energy and parts. Such a concept lacks logic, because we don't understand that an entity can thus be aware of information, which is a quantified entity and therefore "made up of parts". Religious dualists find it impossible to explain why, when an OEMMII suffers from lipothymia or experiences anaesthesia, the soul, if it exists, ceases to be aware of images and memories. On the other hand, an indivisible entity cannot progress or vary in successive states. The contradiction is so diaphanous that it amazes us that any intelligent scientist on Earth would reject this notion as superstitious and illogical.

The UMMMO Scientific Paradigm envisages a very different model.

A network of IBOZSOO UHUU can conform as atomic particles, as Time, as space, but also as a simple substrate of information capable of engramming it. In this way, and contrary to what you may believe, information does not necessarily have to be carried by a flow of energy or stored in a substrate of matter. This only happens in non-zero-mass Universes. There is a ZERO-mass Cosmos capable of storing data on the non-material foundation formed by long strings of U.I.s. For us (B.), SOUL does not transcend space and time. It has a location, and there is the possibility, scientifically confirmed by us, that it can transfer information with our Universe.

The soul is not just the RES COGITANS postulated by Descartes. The soul doesn't think. THE BRAIN THINKS. The soul stores data and governs the spatio-temporal behavior of the human organism (WILL) through the interplay of U.I. sequences and cortical neural networks.

The (B.) is capable of consciousness only if Krypton's transceivers link it to the human brain. When the human body establishes another soul connection with the (B.B.) COLLECTIVE PSYCHE located in another Cosmos, the soul will be able to go on conscientizing. That's why, when you're anaesthetized, the connection is lost (it's like switching off your transceiver) and there seems to be a death of the spirit. Is it possible for a record engrammed with music to manifest its content if we disconnect it from its phono-sensor and the amplification or transduction chain?

Our concept of "human being" is not dichotomous; it's decided in terms of HUMAN NON-HUMAN. It's surprising that some of Earth's OEMII allow themselves to be subjugated by Manichean schemes or dichotomous simplicity, when your own philosophical schools and daily observation of the Universe reveal to you at every moment that things present a very complex range of values. (Between white and black exists a very complicated and quantified constellation of chromatic tones and grays.

Let's put our idea into a parable.

When an Earth architect draws up the basic design for a building, he establishes phases (sometimes not too differentiated) from the moment the plans are drawn up and the land reconsidered, to the construction of the foundations... to the construction of the various pillars and wrought-iron fittings for the different levels, the chaining of the roof and the construction of the window frames. It's a complicated process, right up to the moment when the building is handed over and ready to be lived in.

When can you say there's an EDIFICE or a NON-DIFICE? taking into account a thousand details such as the installation of sanitary fittings and fixtures throughout its useful life (a system is never "completely finished").

If this happens in a network as simple as a reinforced concrete structure, how is it possible to apply the restrictive criterion HUMAN NON-HUMAN to a being as complex as the OEMII?

Only a holistic approach such as ours can shed light on a question that is so nebulous for mankind.

We need to prioritize situations by setting parameters. For us, it's clear that it's more serious, from a bioethical perspective, to kill an Earth mammal that has already been born, is capable of suffering, and is ALREADY fulfilling a function in the planetary biomass, and which also enjoys great organizing complexity (Neguentropy) than a simple human morula, which is nothing more than a potential being. (Don't forget that the earth dog is also an earth being with the potential to experience a mutation transforming its species into a POWERFUL ENTITY for possible evolution towards higher beings).

The moral gravity of terminating a pregnancy must obviously be ranked in order of importance. It is more serious to destroy an embryo than to annihilate a diploid zygote, it is more serious to kill the fetus than to remove an embryo, and the Earth's own legislation sets out a hierarchy of these hypotheses.

Which is more serious for an Earth court, destroying the plans of a building or undermining the already completed structure of the building? Can we say that he who destroys the foundations of a work of art destroys a building? Can it be said that anyone who obstructs the implantation of a newly fertilized ovum is murdering a PERSON?

Don't the few fanatical critics of voluntary termination of pregnancy realize that in many cases the social, physiological and mental consequences (for both the unborn child and the mother) of birth are more serious than the alleged bioethical offence that follows any disruption of a negentropic process? Don't they understand that they should be just as zealous in denouncing violations of rights as serious as torture, war, the violation of man's privacy and freedom, his right to work, famine and the misery of millions of Oemmii who lack food precisely because of super-inflation of the population?

Our Bioethics is based on the defense of the Neguentropic Flow in a Universe where the norm is the Entropic Counterflow. The principle of destroying an organism is a violation of divine law, but it can't be expressed in this simplistic way without taking into account the other interrelations and consequences precisely for the system's global negentropy. In another way, killing bacteria, sacrificing a Heifer on Earth would constitute a violation of the Moral Law. But any of you can understand that the benefits derived from these acts are obviously licit because of the benefits they bring.

Killing a human embryo on a whim, fighting a Bull in a Spanish square with suffering for the animal, allowing millions of children to die of starvation, using a bomb in a terrorist attack are clearly violations of the Moral Law. It's up to you to rank the seriousness of these and many other abominable acts that disrupt the neguentropic flow.

Neguentropy in an ocean of Entropy is like a rare species that must be protected in the MULTICOSMOS. Whether it lives or dies depends on it. This cryptic statement for some readers of this letter has a meaning revealed to other of your Brother Men of OYAAGAA (EARTH) in previous reports.

We only wish you the mental Light to dispassionately elucidate these great truths, with the effort of your scientists and thinkers. It only remains for us to watch you gripped and respectfully saddened by the ocean of ignorance that surrounds you. It's only natural that this should be so. You are still in an early phase of OEMII evolution. One day, the dawn of a new era will illuminate the darkness of your tormented brains with its phosphorescent effluvia.