Re: Abortion

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 22:24:17 GMT, BlackWater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Anderson) wrote:

....

>>>>  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.

That was not what I posted.  Why do you refuse to address the issue?
Birth involved massive physical changes in the fetus that convert it
from a fetus into a biologically indpendent organism.  This is fact,
not opinion.  Why do you keep ignoring this?

>>>   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.

Why do you lie about my posts and my beliefs?  Why will you not
address the issues I post and instead lie and insult me?

....

>>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.

The human species is noted for it's advanced thinking abilities, which
is different in degree, but not in kind, from other animals.  Human
beings are also noted for walking upon two legs and our opposable
thumb.  These are, however, traits of the species.  These traits are
not required to be considered a human being.

I am not willing to define "a human being" as something that is human
and has a arbitrary minimum 'cognitive ability'.   Especially when
'cognitive ability' is left undefined and thus subject to easy change.

>   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 it is *not* "OK" to yank anyone off life support, or to
let them dehydrate/starve.  Pro-Lifers can be so callous.

>>>>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 ... ?

Can't refute so you post the insults.  *SIGH*

http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/fnact99/1980s/udda80.htm
Uniform Determination of Death Act

You might want to note this part:

  "Under part (2), the entire brain must cease to function,
   irreversibly. The "entire brain" includes the brain stem, 
   as well as the neocortex. The concept of "entire brain"
   distinguishes determination of death under this Act from
   "neocortical death" or "persistent vegetative state."
   These are not deemed valid medical or legal bases for
   determining death."

A person can have zero cognitive ability and still be cosidered to be
a living human being with a right to life.  Like I said, death is
rather precisely defined.

>>>>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. 

I have posted that there are massive irrversable physical changes that
occur at birth.  This information has been posted by medical experts,
unrefuted, and I see no reason not to accept them as fact.

Why do you deny medical facts?

>>>   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' ?

Right above -- that there is " no  tangible difference between an 8.9
month fetus and  one that's 'born' "


>>>>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 ? 

No -- which is why your 'cognitive ability' as some sort of defining
what is a human being is pure self-serving bullshit.

>   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.

So it's bullshit.  How about getting back on subject and state what
you mean by "person" or "personhood." 

>>>  ..... 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. 

I have.  That a black person was considered to be 3/5ths of a person
is a damned lie.  

....

>>>  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. 

Can't argue facts so you bring in fantasy..

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

How many times will you tell this lie?  I know better, I have read of
the changes that occur at birth.  Maybe you should -- assuming you
care about facts and/or truth.

>>>   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.

Again, read of the changes that occur at birth.  Stop arguing from
ignorance.
...

>>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. 

I'm not the one ignoring medical facts.