Re: Abortion

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 15:31:42 GMT, BlackWater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>[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 ... 

Don't lie to me.  The changes that occur at birth cannot be reversed
and the baby cannot be placed back into the womb.

>   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. 

Bullshit.  I am not 1.6 persons.  An idiot is not 1/5 th of a person.
You sound like those liberals like Singer who claim that a person is
not a person until they can pass various tests of cognetive abilities.

>>> 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 ?

Nope.  Been the definition for all of human history.

>   Clearly there's a new definition taking shape. You can
>   hear it happening if you bother to listen. 

I keep *asking* for someone to state this 'new defintion'.  All I get
in reply are lies and insults.

>>"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'.

Which would make that lady in Flordia is not a person by your
standards.  Sorry, but I must disagree..

>   Your
>   def is practical medieval. It may serve your political
>   agenda, but it's overly-simplistic crap and you ought
>   to know it.

Like I said, lies and insults.

>   So are the defs used by the rabid anti-
>   choice factions. The truth, as usual, lies somewhere
>   in the middle. Inconvenient, true, but realistic.

"Realistic" does not mean accepting lies.