← Back to letters29/04/18
Madam, the wife of Jorge Barrenechea named Carmen Maria. We are sending you this letter, but you may reproduce it to send to your following brothers: DIONISIO GARRIDO, JORGE BARRENECHEA, RAFAEL FARIOLS (Barcelona), JUAN DOMINGUEZ, JUAN AGUIRRE, JOSE JORDAN, ALBERTO BORRAS, LUIS JIMENEZ, JOAQUIN MARTINEZ, JAVIER MUELA, ANTONIO ALBADALEJO (Murcia), FRANCISCO MEJORADA, JULIAN BARRENECHEA, HILTRUD NORDLIN (Barcelona), J. GARCIA MARTINEZ (Alicante). But I would like Earth men to note that, considering that in your country you alone direct the destinies of the social structure and that it is customary for letters to be addressed to your names, you should consider that this report is especially addressed to my "Sisters of gender" - the women. This time, I can call them sisters although they belong to another social network. May the wives and partners of the mentioned OEMII consider that this message does not belong in ownership to their males but to them. UMMOAELEUEE Addressed to the wife of Jorge Barrenechea and to him.
In recent days, you have questioned us about very diverse topics. The exposition of each of them would fill many pages of paper. However, it seemed to us that there was a high level of emotional sensitivity in the question concerning the voluntary termination of the gestation phase of the unborn human. We know that among the Men of Earth, raising this question generates high levels of emotional hypersensitivity, and that you would like to have our opinion on it, thinking that it would contribute to clarifying the nebulous controversy sparked on OYAAGAA regarding the legitimacy or illegality of this termination.
First of all, we want to repeat to you with unequivocal transparency that we must not interfere in your ethical debates. Our concepts are only valid for our community on the cold star UMMO and must not be used to establish moral behavior models among the humans of the cold star Earth.
To understand our moral idea on the problem, you must first give up unconditional submission to our doctrine. The only way to focus on the question will be: What would we do if, with our current bioethical frameworks, we had to face a situation similar to that on Earth (high demographic expansion index, high risk for the mother and the conceived being during the embryological phase, dark prospects for the future life of the newborn child, poor biotech level in gestational assistance, ideological pressures of financial, religious, and political nature…).
To understand our moral idea concerning the voluntary destruction of the diploid zygote, or the embryo or fetus during its uterine implantation in the YIIE (Woman), we must first clarify some basic concepts about life, bioethics, and especially transcendent factors related to the organism. We must specify that the supposition of the termination of human pregnancy is almost unknown on UMMO in our time. The biological control over the child’s genome, our possibilities to assist the course of gestation via biotechnology (which is never done “In Vitro,” that is, in an environment external to a matrix in the YIIE despite the possibility of the developing being gestating not only in laboratory equipment but also implanted in a real biological matrix separated from the woman; these techniques are perfectly viable for our embryologists) rule out the entire range of risks that lead to teratological malformations in the unborn being and pathological harm to the mother.
The situation on OYAAUMMO is absolutely not comparable to that of OYAAGAA (This word means cold star of the square. That is how we call Earth because the first electromagnetic signals received from you reminded us of the figure of a square). We think that the topic of freely induced death of a being to be born when it has not yet left the maternal uterus is the subject on Earth of passionate controversy, provoking in some OEMMII cries of pain and in others indignation due to the lack of freedom of the YIIE (WOMAN) to dispose of the fruit of her matrix because all parts of the ideological dispute have their share of reasons.
Let us first define a bioethical principle. All consumption of death of a being in gestation (1) (in any phase of the being in gestation; from its diploid zygote state to its developed fetal phase) is rejectable as a violation of the laws of WOA insofar as this annihilation occurs frivolously and without necessity, when no harmful consequences are feared for the future being to be born and when the pregnancy was desired and assumed before fertilization was consummated.
If birth and gestation will not have other harmful consequences for the mother, for the father, or society, of a higher order than those deriving from the prejudice to a negentropic process such as embryogenesis.
We believe that the discussion among you revolves around two fundamental concepts. You are formulating very vague definitions concerning the two notions of LIFE and PERSON. These are interpreted differently by secular individuals and by religious and believing humans. For us, life is defined as a molecular system or network that follows a negentropic principle (decreasing entropy over time) and utilizes coding and information embedded at the quantum, biomolecular, and mesophysical levels to control entropic and negentropic reactions (quantum level involving noble gas atoms like krypton, biomolecular level concerning proteins and nucleic acids, mesophysical level involving micro-neuronal networks). Every living being is uniquely corresponded with two extreme Universes within the family of Cosmos at light speeds C, C, C, C... C (These extreme Universes have zero mass and infinite mass respectively of 0, 1, 2, 3 n). Communication with the Universe of zero mass is only possible for the OEMMII. This is precisely how we differentiate ourselves from NON-HUMAN organisms such as a protozoan or a feline, a spore or a kidney, since we do not apply the term HUMAN to an organ like the spleen or lung of a man but to the entirety of the OEMII. For us, an isolated organ like the spinal cord, cerebellum, or gallbladder constitutes networks similar to a mammal or a conifer. Life is therefore a holistic concept that integrates a material process, which enriches in increasing complexity, of entities whose substrate capable of embedding information is housed in two other cosmos and atomic micro-networks whose function is to decode and encode. Emit and receive intercosmic information. The common denominator of all these factors is negentropy. However, we could attempt a simplified definition of LIFE: LIFE IS NEGENTROPY, DEATH IS ENTROPY. The most pronounced characteristics of a LIVING biophysical NETWORK are: Firstly: EMBEDDING INFORMATION AT THE MESOPHYSICAL AND MICROBIOLOGICAL LEVEL. Secondly: REPRODUCING by its own means. Thirdly: REACTING to the environment after capturing information. Thirdly [sic, there is already a third..., translator's note]: Processing information. Fourthly: METABOLIZING external matter. The concept of PERSON has never been defined on UMMO. It is a notion originating from Earth that surprised us when we came to your cold Star. Indeed. In the scientific domain, there exist very clear concepts that can be understood by a Spaniard, an Anglo-Saxon, or one of my brothers from UMMO. Thus, a series of phonemes like "MICROWAVES" "MICROWAVE" ("OOAYE SAUUA") are words that have a defined meaning in various languages. Oscillations of very short period and a centimeter or meter wavelength. A physicist from any country on Earth would not have difficulty understanding these (notions) and other notions like "electron" or "rotational". Any biologist would have a sufficiently clear idea of what is meant by "Blastomere" or "chordate". These are not conventional concepts but unique correspondences between words and real physicobiological entities. However, the semantic concept differs when it comes to symbols, conventional codes, or legal concepts. You use RED as a danger symbol, whereas we use PURPLE, PINK, OR LILAC. The Nazis of Germany used the swastika, and legal concepts like "person," "abuse," "spouse," "airspace," and "natural law" are so vague and evanescent that they receive antagonistic treatments under various legislative codes separated in space and time.
In this way, a notion like PERSON cannot be defined by itself without a commission of legal or theological experts agreeing at a specific time and place to grant it a capricious meaning. It is here that the being in gestation is considered by some legislations as an "object of Law" while being denied any legal status in other legal frameworks. Are we considered persons by the jurists of Earth, we the brothers of UMMO? It is evident that we do not have legal personality, just as insects and fungi do not. Any scientist on Earth, should they capture us, could make us the subject of their biological experiments as if we were guinea pigs without violating any law, because in the eyes of the legislator the OEMMII from another planetary body do not fall within their concept of personhood. Any discussion on whether the fetus is or is not a PERSON is as futile and incongruous as starting a controversy over whether "danger is red or lilac." Believing jurists will assert that the embryo is a "person," influenced by their religious faith, while secular materialist legislators will argue that this status cannot be granted as long as the being to be born has not exited the uterine cavity. The subject would not be exhausted because there would be a generalized consensus for or against it, as it would continuously turn into a convention without any scientific correlation. It also does not shed light by defining 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; some epithelial cells are molecular portions). Understanding it as human, one must find 46 human chromosomes in the cell nucleus. However, one of our fingers or a cell from the connective tissue of the dermis contains human chromosomes, and no one doubts that we can remove a thumb or take a simple biopsy without violating moral law. If it is objected that the embryo or fetus in the mother's womb holds distinct genomes from those of the mother in its nuclei, the question will remain unresolved, because in the case of a kidney transplant or a portion of epidermis from another person, the chromosomal load is distinct. Would the law be violated by accusing someone of murder who, for clinical necessities, removes the implanted tissue? As parabolic examples of the absurdities incurred with these arguments based on the concept of human life, imagine two situations that could be found in the future of Earth, provided that Biotech has developed sufficiently. Suppose they extract a cell from a YIEE prisoner serving time for a crime through a biopsy. Then, dividing her chromosomal load by two and selecting chromosomes, they combine the semi-genome with that of a male sperm within a foreign ovum devoid of DNA. Following this, a maturation process occurs in the laboratory and the next act, through a simple intervention with prior anesthesia and conditioning of the female soma to prevent immunological rejection, involves implanting the embryo into the prisoner’s uterus. Would she violate the law if, once free, she removes the unwanted child? In another scenario, a biotechnician successfully synthesizes in the laboratory, as we have done, a long chain of genes corresponding to that of the human being. For many years, we on UMMO have been able to merge 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 inject this load into an ovum, which essentially forms the structure of a diploid zygote.
Would there be a serious bioethical problem if the scientist who masters the creation of human chromosomes later destroys his work? In this way, the controversy between believers and skeptics in the earthly Social Network is completely unsolvable as long as the focus is on questions such as whether the fetus is a person or not, whether it is or isn't a human Life. But for men who accept a religious creed, the problem centers on another important question: When does the soul associate with the being to be born? At the moment of fertilization? When the former zygote transforms into a morula? When do the various tissues begin to differentiate in the embryo? For some believers on Earth, it is clear that the zygote is connected to the soul. This is a presumptuous claim in the current state of scientific and theological research, which relies only on scholastic speculation without any empirical basis. Furthermore, it is clear that for the agnostic, this concept is void of content. The Dualist believes in the existence of the soul. The monist takes ample evidence that what believers call spirit is nothing 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 system's complexity. Thus, the hypothesis that the embryo is a complete human being with legal Person status constitutes an act of faith that cannot be imposed as such on non-believers by dogm.
Lettre Ummite#688