D539 The problem of abortion.

UMMOAELEUUE                                                      

 

Mrs, wife of Jorge Barrenechea, named Carmen María.

 

We address this letter to you, but you may reproduce it to send it to the following brothers of yours

 

DIONISIO GARRIDO

JORGE BARRENECHEA

RAFAEL FARRIOLS (Barcelona)

JUAN DOMÍNGUEZ

JUAN AGUIRRE

JOSÉ JORDÁN

ALBERTO BORRAS

LUÍS JIMÉNEZ

JOAQUÍN MARTÍNEZ

JAVIER MUELA

ANTONIO ALBADALEJO  (Murcia)

FRANCISCO MEJORADA

JULIÁN BARRENECHEA

HILTRUD NORDLIN (Barcelona)

J. GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ (Alicante)

 

But I would wish, men of Earth, bearing in mind that in your Country you alone govern the destinies of the social structure and that it is customary for letters to be addressed to your names, that you consider that this report is addressed above all, and especially, to my “Sisters in sex”, the women. Now I can indeed call them sisters, even though they belong to another social network.

 

Let the wives and partners of the OEMII mentioned consider that this message does not belong as property to their men, but to them.

 

                                                                                                                    

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UMMOAELEUEE

Language: Spanish.

Number of Copies ONE Addressed to the Wife of Jorge Barrenechea and to him himself, whom we make depositary.

                                                                                 

Mr Jorge:

 

We have been questioned by you in the course of these dates about the most diverse subjects. The exposition of each of them would take up a great many sheets of paper. But we seem to have observed a high level of emotiveness in the question concerning the voluntary interruption of the gestation phase of the human being about to be born.

 

We know that among the OENMII of Earth raising this question generates high levels of emotional hypersensitivity, and that you would like our opinion on it, thinking that it would help to clarify the nebulous controversy raised on OYAAGAA about the lawfulness or unlawfulness of that interruption.

 

First of all we wish to repeat to you with unequivocal clarity that we must not meddle in your debates of an ethical character. Our concepts are valid only for our community on the cold Star UMMMO and must not serve to establish moral patterns of behaviour among humans of the cold Star EARTH.

 

To understand our moral idea of the problem, you must first renounce an unconditional acceptance of our doctrine.

 

The only way to focus the question will be: what would we do if, with our present bioethical schemes, we had to face a situation similar to that of Earth (high rate of demographic expansion, high risk for mother and foetus in the course of embryonic development, gloomy prospects for the future life of the one about to be born, poor biotechnical level in the care of gestation, ideological pressures of an economic, religious and political character ...

 

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

 

We must point out that the case of interruption of human pregnancy is almost unknown on UMMO in our era. Biological control over the genome of the child and our possibilities of assisting biotechnically the whole course of gestation (which is never done “In Vitro”, that is, in a medium external to a womb within the YIE, even though the possibility of gestational development not only within laboratory equipment but implanted in a real biological womb separate from the woman is fully feasible for our embryologists) rule out the whole range of risks leading to a teratological deformation in the one about to be born and a pathological affection for the mother.

 

The situation of OYAAUMMO is in no way comparable with that of OYAAGAA (this word means cold Star of the square. We call the Earth thus because the first electromagnetic signals received from you recalled the figure of a square)

 

We think that the subject of the freely induced death of a being about to be born, while it has not yet left the maternal womb, is on Earth the object of impassioned controversy, arousing in some OEMMII cries of pain and in others indignation at the lack of freedom of the YIIE (WOMAN) to dispose of the fruit of her womb, because all the parties to the ideological dispute are partly right.

 

Let us first define a Bioethical principle: every consummation of the death of a being in gestation (1) (in any phase of gestation, from its state as a diploid zygote to its developed foetal phase) is to be rejected as a violation of the laws of WOA (GOD), whenever that annihilation is carried out frivolously and without necessity, when no harmful consequences are feared for the future of the one about to be born, and when the pregnancy was wanted and accepted before fertilization took place.

 

If, moreover, the birth or gestation is not going to have harmful consequences for the mother, the father or society of a higher order than those that follow from the distortion of a negentropic process such as embryogenesis.

 

We think that the discussion among you centres on two basic concepts. You produce very murky definitions of both notions, LIFE and PERSON, which are interpreted differently by agnostic laymen and by religious and believing humans.

 

For us, life is defined as a molecular system or network that follows a principle of negentropy (entropy decreasing in time) and that uses, for its reactions of control of the entropic and negentropic environment, the coding and information engrammed at the quantum, biomolecular and mesophysical levels (quantum level in atoms of the noble gas Krypton, biomolecular at the level of proteins and nucleic acids, mesophysical at the level of neuronal micro-networks).

 

Every living being corresponds biunivocally to two extreme Universes within the family of Cosmoses with speeds of light c₀ c₁ c₂ c₃ ................ c_n (these extreme Universes being of zero mass and infinite mass respectively).

 

Communication with the Universe of zero mass is possible only in the OEMII. It is precisely in this that we differ from NON-HUMAN organisms -in the case of Earth, a protozoon or a feline, a spore or a kidney- (for we do not apply the term HUMAN to an organ such as the spleen or lung of a man, but to the whole of the OEMII. For us an isolated organ such as a nerve trunk, the cerebellum or the gall bladder constitutes networks similar to a mammal or a conifer.

 

Life is therefore a holistic concept that integrates a material process growing in complexity, entities whose substratum, capable of engramming information, is located in two other cosmoses, and atomic micro-networks whose function is to decode and code, to emit and receive intercosmic information. The common denominator of all these factors is Negentropy. We might venture a simplified definition of LIFE:

 

LIFE IS NEGENTROPY

DEATH IS ENTROPY.

 

The most marked characteristics of a LIVING biophysical NETWORK, however, are: first, to ENGRAM INFORMATION AT THE MESOPHYSICAL AND MICROBIOLOGICAL LEVEL. Second, to REPRODUCE by its own means. Third, to REACT to the environment after capturing information and processing that information. Fourth, to METABOLIZE material from outside.

 

The concept of PERSON has never been defined on UMMO. It is a notion originating on EARTH that surprised us when we came to your cold Star. Indeed: within the Scientific Field there are very clear concepts that can be understood by a Spaniard, an Anglo-Saxon or one of my brothers of UMMO. Thus a series of phonemes such as “MICROONDAS”, “MICROWAVE”, “(OOAYE SAUUA)” are words which in different languages have a definite meaning: oscillations of very short period and centimetric or metric wavelength.

 

A physicist from any country of Earth will have no difficulty understanding that and other notions such as “electron” or “curl”. Any biologist will have a fairly clear idea of what is meant by “Blastomere” or “chordate”. These are not conventional concepts, but biunivocal correspondences between words and real physicobiological entities.

 

But the semantic concept varies when it comes to symbols, conventional codes or legal concepts. You use RED as the symbol of danger, we use PINKISH VIOLET or LILAC. The Nazis of Germany used the swastika, and the legal concepts of “person”, “cruelty”, “husband”, “airspace”, “Natural Law” are so vague and evanescent that they receive sometimes antagonistic treatment within different legislative codes separated in space and time.

 

Thus a notion like PERSON is not defined by itself; rather a commission of expert jurists or theologians AGREE, at a specific time and place, to give it a capricious meaning.

 

That is how the “being in gestation” is considered by some legislations as an “object of Law” and is denied any legal status in other legal frameworks.

 

Are we, my brothers of UMMO, persons for the jurists of Earth? Evidently we lack legal personality, as insects and fungi lack it. Any scientist of Earth who captured us could make us the object of biological experiments as if we were guinea pigs without infringing any law, for in the eyes of the legislator the OEMMII of another planetary star will not fit his concept of persons.

 

Any discussion about whether or not the foetus is a PERSON is as sterile and irrelevant as starting a controversy about whether “danger is red or lilac”.

 

Believing jurists will affirm that the embryo is a “Person”, influenced by their religious faith, and secular materialist legislators will postulate that this status cannot be granted to it until the one about to be born leaves the uterine cavity. The subject would not be exhausted even if there were a general consensus for or against, for it would still be merely a convention without any scientific correlate.

 

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 the colon are molar portions; a few epithelial cells are molecular portions), understanding as human that there are 46 human chromosomes in the cell nucleus.

 

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

 

If it is objected that the embryo or foetus in the maternal uterus has in its nuclei genomes different from those of the mother, the question will still not be clarified, for in the case of a graft of a kidney or of a portion of epidermis coming from another person the chromosomal load is different. Would the moral law be violated, with a charge of murder against whoever, for clinical needs, removed the implanted tissue again?

 

As parabolic examples of the absurdity incurred with these arguments based on the concept of human life, imagine two situations that may arise in the future of Earth as soon as Biotechnics has acquired sufficient development.

 

Suppose that from a YIEE prisoner serving a sentence of deprivation of liberty for a crime committed a cell of her body is extracted by means of a biopsy. Then, halving its chromosomal load and selecting the chromosomes, the half-genome is fused with that of a male spermatozoon inside another person's ovum emptied of DNA. A process of maturation in the laboratory follows, and immediately afterwards, by means of a simple intervention, with prior anaesthesia and conditioning of the female soma so that there is no immunological rejection, the embryo is implanted in the prisoner's womb.

 

Would she be breaking the law if, once free, she removed the unwanted child?

 

In another case, a biotechnician succeeds in synthesizing in the laboratory, as we have done, a long chain of genes corresponding to that of a human being. We on UMMO have been able for many years to fuse a long sequence of nucleotides to synthesize human beings, although in practice the process is limited to biotechnical studies without further consequences.

 

It is evident that this scientist can graft such a load into an ovum, which in short constitutes the structure of a diploid zygote.

 

Would a serious bioethical problem arise if the scientist who has just created some human chromosomes annihilated his work immediately afterwards?

 

In this way the controversy between believers and sceptics within the Earth Social Network is, as you see, wholly irresolvable as long as it centres on problems such as whether or not the foetus is a person, or whether or not it is human Life.

 

But for men who accept a religious creed the problem centres on another important question: when is the soul associated with the one about to be born? At the moment of fertilization? At the moment when the former zygote is transformed into a morula? When the different tissues begin to differentiate in the embryo?

 

Certain believers of Earth believe it is clear that the zygote is already linked to the soul. This is a rash assertion at the present state of scientific and theological research, resting only on scholastic speculations without any empirical foundation. But moreover it is clear that for the agnostic such a concept is empty of content. The Dualist believes in the existence of the soul. The monist has abundant proofs that what believers call spirit is nothing but a mental process that can be explained through data processing in the neuronal network of the brain, and that consciousness is an emergence derived from the complexity of the system

 

In this way the postulate that the embryo is a complete human being with the legal status of a Person constitutes an act of faith which, as such, cannot be imposed by dogmatic believers on non-believers. That is why we affirm to you that the controversy is sterile and leads to no solution backed by Science.

 

We can prove scientifically that a few hours after the formation of the diploid zygote (fertilization) the OEMBUAAUU (O) is formed: a network of atoms of the gas Krypton (a sequence of atoms not linked by valence connections) that puts the being about to be born in relation with its BUUAUUA (B) SOUL. For there was already before a connection, as the living entity it is, with the Universe of Infinite Mass, which engrams the information provided by all the living beings of the multicosmos.

 

This assertion seems to prove the believers right, and in part it does, but not before qualifying it extensively.

 

In the first place, unlike you, we affirm that every living being, from a viroid to a complex mammal such as an Earth orang-utan, including all the cells of a man, is associated by a biunivocal relation with a SOUL, although only the OEMII can connect with it through the Krypton emitter-receivers.

 

On the other hand, our concept of Soul is singularly different from that of the scholastic and neo-scholastic thinkers. For them and other believers of different religions, the soul or spirit is a timeless, dimensionless, immaterial entity which therefore CANNOT BE in a space-time continuum and consequently lacks Matter, Energy and parts.

 

Such a concept lacks logic, for it is not understood how such an entity can become conscious of information, which is a quantized entity and therefore “made of parts”. Religious dualists are unable to explain why, when an OEMMII suffers a fainting fit or undergoes anaesthesia, the soul, if it exists, ceases to be conscious of images and memories. On the other hand, an indivisible entity cannot progress or vary in the form of successive states. The contradiction is so clear that it is not strange that any intelligent scientist of Earth should reject that notion, describing it as superstitious and illogical.

 

The scientific paradigm of UMMO contemplates a very different model. A Network of IBOZOO UHUU can take the form of atomic particles, of Time, of space, but also of a simple substratum of information capable of engramming it. In this way, contrary to what you believe, information does not necessarily have to be carried by a flow of energy or stored in a substratum of matter. That happens only in a Universe of non-zero mass. There exists a Cosmos of ZERO mass capable of storing data on a non-material foundation formed by long chains of I.U. For us (B) SOUL does not transcend space and time. It has a location, and there exists the possibility, verified scientifically by us, that it can transfer information with our Universe.

 

The SOUL is not only the RES COGITANS postulated by Descartes. The SOUL does not think. THE BRAIN THINKS. The soul stores data and governs, by interaction between sequences of I.U. and cortical neuronal Networks, the behaviour of the spatio-temporal human Organism (WILL).

 

The (B) is capable of becoming conscious only if the Krypton receiver-emitters put it in relation with the human brain. When the human body dies, another connection of the Soul is established with the (B.B) COLLECTIVE PSYCHE located in another Cosmos, and the soul will be able to go on being conscious. That is why, when you are anaesthetized and the connection is lost (it is as if you switched off your transmitter-receiver), it seems as if there were a death of the spirit. Is a disc with recorded music capable of manifesting its content if it is disconnected from its pickup and its chain of amplification or transduction?

 

Our concept of “human being” is not dichotomous, resolvable in terms of MAN NOT-MAN. It is surprising that some OEMII of Earth let themselves be subjugated by Manichaean or simplistic dichotomous schemes, when their own Philosophical Schools and daily Observation of the Universe reveal to them at every instant that things present a very complex range of values (between white and black there is a very complicated and quantized constellation of colour tones and greys.

 

We will set out our thought with a parable.

 

When an Architect of Earth designs the basic project of a building, he establishes phases (sometimes not very differentiated), from the moment of drawing the plans and setting out the Ground, building the foundations... up to the construction of the various pillars and floor slabs of the different storeys, the crowning of the roofs and the building of the enclosures.

 

It is a whole complicated process until the building is finished and brought to light (inhabited).

 

When can you say that there IS A BUILDING or NO BUILDING, bearing in mind that a thousand details of it, such as the sanitary installations and various fittings, last the whole useful life of the building? (“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 of MAN NOT-MAN to a being as complex as the OEMII?

 

Only a holistic conception like ours can clarify a question so nebulous for the Men of Earth.

 

It is necessary to rank situations hierarchically, parametrizing them. For us it is clear that it is more serious, from a bioethical perspective, to kill an Earth mammal already born, capable of suffering, which ALREADY fulfils a function in the planetary biomass and which moreover enjoys great organizational complexity (Negentropy), than a simple human morula, which is no more than a being in potency (do not forget that the dog of Earth is a being in potency capable of undergoing a mutation transforming its species into an ENTITY IN POTENCY for a possible evolution towards higher beings.)

 

The moral gravity of the interruption of gestation must obviously be ranked hierarchically. It is more serious to destroy an embryo than to annihilate a diploid zygote; it is more serious to kill the foetus than to remove an embryo; and the very legislation of Earth ranks those cases hierarchically.

 

What is more serious for a Court of Earth: to destroy the plans of a building or to undermine the already finished structure? Can it be said that whoever destroys the foundations of a construction destroys a building? Can it be affirmed that whoever prevents the implantation of a newly fertilized ovum murders a PERSON?

 

Do some fanatical detractors of the voluntary interruption of gestation not realize that in many cases the social, physiological and mental consequences of the birth (for the one about to be born and for the mother) are more serious than the presumed bioethical infringement that follows from every disturbance of a Negentropic process?

 

Do they not understand that they ought to put as much zeal into denouncing violations of rights as serious as torture, war, the violation of man's privacy and his freedom, his right to work, the hunger and misery of millions of Oemmii who lack food precisely because of the over-inflation of the population?

 

Our Bioethics has as its foundation the defence of the negentropic Flow in a Universe where the norm is the contrary, entropic current. In principle, to destroy an organism is a violation of the divine law, but it cannot be expressed thus in a simplistic way, without taking into account other interrelations and consequences precisely for the global negentropy of the system. Otherwise, killing some bacteria or slaughtering a calf on Earth would constitute violations of the Moral Law. But any of you can understand that the benefits derived from these acts .../... they are obviously lawful because of the benefits they entail.

 

To kill a human embryo capriciously, to fight a Bull in a Spanish bullring with suffering for the animal, to allow millions of children to die of hunger, to use a bomb in a terrorist attack, are clear violations of the Moral Law.

It is for you to rank the gravity of these and many other abominable acts that disturb the negentropic flow.

 

Negentropy in an ocean of Entropy is like a rare species that must be protected in the MULTICOSMOS. On it depends whether the latter is perpetuated or dies. This statement, cryptic for some readers of this letter, has a meaning revealed to other brothers of yours, men of OYAAGAA (EARTH), in previous reports.

 

We only wish you mental light to elucidate dispassionately these great truths through the effort of your scientists and thinkers. It is only for us to contemplate you, overwhelmed and respectful, saddened by the ocean of ignorance that surrounds you. It is natural that it should be so. You are in a still rather early phase of the evolution of the OEMII. Some day the dawn of a new era will light up, with its phosphorescent effluvia, the darkness of your tormented brains.

 

I want to be a faithful friend to you, Carmen María, to your husband and to your brothers. This letter is addressed to you as a woman who has sometimes suffered masculine incomprehension.

 

My name is INDOO 33 Daughter of INDOO 29

With emotion I place my hand on your august chest.