Re: Abortion

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Anderson) wrote:

>On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 22:28:56 GMT, 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.
>
>You have everything required to be buried, except that you are still
>living. 

   And a full glass has everything required to be
   an empty glass ... but it's not. 

>"Except" makes a difference.  Not to mention that the
>differences between a 9-month fetus and a born child is quite a bit
>more than merely a change of location.

   Care to list all of the cognitive improvements that
   you think occur during the half hour it takes to
   be squeezed out or removed by c-section ? Seems
   to me that the brainpower is identical for all
   intents and purposes. 

   Why don't you go back to defining 'black' people
   as 3/5ths of a person and leave the rest of us
   to work something out ?

>You claim that the fertilized cell is NOT a person.  Is this an
>arbitrary pronouncement upon your part, or do you have a reason for
>declaring the zygote to be not a person?  

   Show me one 'person-like' behaviorial characteristic,
   one sign that there's "someone there". Doesn't exist.
   What's "human", a 'person', has little to do with
   physical condition and everything to do with how we
   think and perceive. Even a properly-programmed 
   computer could be a 'person' - will be, someday. 

>>Clearly "personhood" - moral and 
>>hopefully legal - is something that *develops* as the
>>pregnancy advances. 
>
>And death is something that develops as life progresses.

   Even 'death' isn't always clearly and sharply
   defined. Just because uncle Joe is getting old
   and senile and requires an oxygen tank, it
   doesn't mean he's suddenly a non-person who
   can be thrown into the dumpster. We're quite
   willing to extend legal rights to people with
   LESS cognitive ability than the average 8.9 
   month fetus ... so there's just no excuse for
   ignoring that fetus - unless you're just out
   to spite Pat Robertson. 

>Except that
>death is not some fuzzy state between the cradle and the grave.

   I'd suggest you check out the news ... 'death' has
   become VERY 'fuzzy' - in practical and legal terms -
   over the past decades and will only become more so.

>Neither is a person some fuzzy thing that cannot be defined.

   8.9 is a 'person'. You KNOW it is but you've got some
   political agenda that prevents you from admitting it.
   I suspect you're SO eager to thwart the 'religious
   right' that you'll gladly allow perfectly good citizens
   to be butchered. Makes me wonder just who has the
   moral highground sometimes ... 

>State what you mean by "person" or "personhood" and when a person
>exists becomes a bright spot.

   Oh gee ... and how about the whole 'meaning of
   life' while I'm at it ... ?

   A 'person' ... you know one when you see one. Think
   more in terms of the 'Turing test'. In the near future
   a 'person' may even be something cybernetic. What
   makes a 'person' slowly fades away towards either end
   of their lifespan but when it comes to the old 'life
   liberty and persuit of happiness' bit I somehow feel
   we ought to extend the benifit of the doubt to the
   almost-born. Hey ... even those 3/5ths persons they
   used to call 'negros' had SOME legal rights.

>>There's no clear line, but it seems that the MIDDLE
>>point - 4.5 months - would make a fair delineator 
>>between 'tissue' and 'citizen'.
>
>And a pizza is finished half-way thru cooking?  I don't think so.

   Try one ... it's still tasty. At the very least it
   will sustain you. 

>>Arguments that 
>>revolve around either extreme of the process are
>>just missing the realities of pregnancy. You start
>>with no one and end up with someone - but the
>>change isn't instantaneous. 
>
>Define what you mean by "someone."  With normally accepted definitions
>the change from fetus to someone, while not instantaneous, happens
>within a span of a few minutes.

   Which is idiotic. The circuitry and systems have been
   in pretty good shape for a good month or two before
   birth. Preemies aren't thrown into the trash - they
   are considered 'people'. Moving them a few inches
   and clipping a cord doesn't cause some magic spark
   of sudden 'personhood'. The right stuff was there
   already, and had been for a while. 

   I know we like nice clean boundaries for legal and
   ethical purposes, but they don't always exist. This
   is why we have gradiations in 'crime', gradiations
   in 'goodness', gradiations in 'love' and 'hate'.
   Black and white are *convenient* - but the universe
   tends to be analog, not digital. 

   4.5 months is the BEST compromise. Plenty of time
   to get an abortion, plenty of time to give the 
   developing citizen the benifit of the doubt and
   treat it as a 'person'. There are some viable
   arguments a little bit each side of 4.5, but if
   we've gotta pick a time for legal purposes then
   4.5 is best. Frankly, I'd rather 'phase in' 
   rights and legal protections, but that would
   become rather complex and give folks MORE excuses
   to hate and kill each other.