Re: Abortion

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Anderson) wrote:

>On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 15:20:33 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.
>>>
>>>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. 
>
>A person, a human being, is more than 'brainpower.'  Might be why
>Pro-Lifers like to point out that a fetus has it's own blood,
>heartbeat, etc..   Medically trained persons have posted on this
>subject in talk.abortion.  Repeatedly.  With no rebutal of the facts.

   Sounds like you think being born "jump-starts" or
   "boots-up" an otherwise dormant brain. Of course,
   I suspect the violent intrusions of a late-term
   abortion would do exactly the same thing ...

>>   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 ?
>
>I have never defined a 'black' person as being 3/5ths of a person.
>Why must you lie about me?

   Your attitude is disturbingly similar to the 3/5ths
   crowd ... anything to make someone else "less than
   human" so you can abuse them to your hearts content.
   Some of that old blacks-are-not-people stuff can
   be found on the net. Look it up, if you dare. Just
   cross-out "negro" and write-in the word "fetus"
   in crayon ... 

>>>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. 
>
>Again with this 'cognitive ability'.  I have *never* seen any
>authoritive definition of "a human being" that requires any sort of
>'cognitive ability.' 

   Since our 'congitive ability' DEFINES humanity from
   the rest of the animal world I'd say it's damned 
   important. Sans cognitive ability, all you've got
   is DNA in water. That's why it's OK to yank the
   'brain dead' off of all life support - indeed to
   make their bodies die of thirst and hunger if
   the heart and lungs refuse to stop when the plug
   is pulled. 

>>>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.
>
>No.  Death is not fuzzy at all.  It is legally defined quite
>precisely.

   Haven't updated your law books since 1860 eh ... ?

>>>Neither is a person some fuzzy thing that cannot be defined.
>>
>>   8.9 is a 'person'. You KNOW it is
>
>Again you lie about me.  Why?

   Well, I sure as hell HOPED you *knew* there was no
   tangible difference between an 8.9 month fetus and
   one that's "born" in some way when the clock ticks
   over to 9.0. If you do and won't admit it then shame
   on you. If you really can't tell, then I just feel
   sorry for you. 

>>   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 ... 
>
>Obviously not the one who must resort to lies when they cannot argue
>the issue.

   Hmmm ... now just what WAS this 'lie' ? Frankly, you
   come across as one of those rabid anti-RR people who
   don't care what damage they cause so long as Jerry
   Falwell and Pat Robertson never get their way on
   anything. 

>>>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'.
>
>I know of persons who would fail the Turing Test -- like most under
>three years of age.  

   Ah ... so we can chop THEM up too - right ? 

   Actually, even very small children can be
   suprisingly cognizant - the limiting factor
   seems to be their language skills. A fully-
   grown person who doesn't speak your language
   would also fail the Turing test unless you
   took that little problem into account.

>>   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.
>
>Again whith the 3/5 person lie.  *SIGH*

   The "3/5ths" thing was TRUTH ... look it up. 

>>>>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'.
>
>Because they are born.

   Hmmm ... what if they were grown in a jar 
   and thus never really "born" ? In 25 years
   or so that's gonna be an issue. 

   You seem unduly hung-up on this word "born". It
   doesn't really MEAN much except a slight change
   of venue. 

>>   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. 
>
>Birth is more than 'moving them a few inches and clipping a cord.'
>Sorry, but I cannot accept lies as any sort of valid argument.

   Birth is NOT much more than moving them a few inches
   and clipping a cord. They'll (probably) get a lot more
   sensory input thereafter, but it's not as if they got
   no sensory input before. Again, I'm concentrating on
   the organ that really makes us "people" - the brain.
   The rest isn't any different from cows, sheep or monkeys.

>>   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. 
>
>WHY would I accept a compromise based upon falsehoods, lies,
>denial of the facts of language and biology ? 

   Well, until you admit that I'm right, you probably
   won't ... but someday, just maybe, enlightenment
   will come to you.