Re: Abortion

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 12:36:07 GMT, BlackWater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>BlackWater  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>A fertilized cell is NOT a "person" - but a 8.9 month
>>>fetus has everything required to be so except a seperate
>>>mailing address.
>>
>>And what are the requirements for "person"?
>
>   A variety of abilities and 'potentials' too
>   numerous (and sometimes too vague) to list.

A person is that which evinces a personality, the the complex of
characteristics that distinguishes an individual from others of the
same type.
 
>   It's kinda one of those "you know it when
>   you see it" things. Whip out an 8.9 month
>   fetus and you see a 'person', a human baby.

Correct.  Whip out an 8.9 month fetus and you have a birth and a
resulting human being/baby/infant/person.

>   Whip out an embryo and you DON'T see it.

That is 'cause it will be an abortus, a stillborn.

Leave either in the woman and all you have is a pregnant woman.  That
part of the woman that causes the pregnancy does not evince a
personality.  The pregnancies vary, but that is not evidence of
different embryos/fetuses.

>   The transition, the shift in the balance of
>   features and characteristics from mere 'stuff'
>   to 'person', happens somewhere during the
>   gestation. Try to apply black and white
>   thinking to a continous, analog process and
>   you'll never get it right.  

No, the transistion happens at birth, when the fetus becomes a
biologically separate and independent individual organism, displaying
it's own characteristics that distiguish it from all other babies.

>>> Clearly "personhood" - moral and 
>>>hopefully legal - is something that *develops* as the
>>>pregnancy advances. 
>>
>>Says who?
>
>   Says ME. I count. I also plan to spread the word,

Yeah, and people will be laughing at you and pointing out that you
have no idea of what you are blathering about.
...

>   I'd suggest you accept my proposed compromise. It's
>   rational, sensible, functional and something all
>   'sides' of this idiotic debate might grudgingly
>   accept. 

What compromise?  So far all you have done is shown that you do not
understand the comcept of 'person.'