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.
>
>Standard Pro-Life lie:  A term fetus and a newborn baby are just the
>same, only a change of location.
>Fact:  The changes that occur at birth to transform a fetus into a
>biologically separate and self-contained organism are massive and
>irreversable.

   Well, not 'irreversible' really ... 

   And not 'massive' where it REALLY COUNTS, between
   the ears. In the end, THAT'S where 'personhood'
   really exists - the way the mind is set-up. 

>> Clearly "personhood" - moral and 
>>hopefully legal - is something that *develops* as the
>>pregnancy advances. 
>
>Clearly bullshit.  A person, in the meaning of a natural human person
>AKA a human being, is that which is born, human, and alive.

   Depends on todays definition rather heavily, doesn't it ?
   Clearly there's a new definition taking shape. You can
   hear it happening if you bother to listen. 

>"Personhood", whatever that means, clearly is conferred when the
>person first comes into existance -- at birth.  

   I'd say it's the ability to think, feel, emote and
   generally experience the universe in some manner we
   can recognize as intelligent, aware, 'being'. Your
   def is practical medieval. It may serve your political
   agenda, but it's overly-simplistic crap and you ought
   to know it. So are the defs used by the rabid anti-
   choice factions. The truth, as usual, lies somewhere
   in the middle. Inconvenient, true, but realistic.