Re: Abortion

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Anderson) wrote:

>On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:31:47 GMT, BlackWater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Anderson) wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 12:36:07 GMT, BlackWater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>>A person is that which evinces a personality, the complex of
>>>characteristics that distinguishes an individual from others of the
>>>same type.
>>
>>   So, if two people think alike, it's OK to just
>>   shoot one of them ?  :-) 
>
>No two people think alike on all subjects.  Not to mention that "the
>complex of characteristics" involves far more than just 'thinking'.  

   Kinda undermines your "fetuses think the same" assertion ...

>>   'Personhood' is a sum-total of congitive abilities
>>   broad enough to generate human-scale intelligence
>>   and a more-or-less human awareness of self and
>>   environment. In theory, even an electronic device
>>   could achieve 'personhood'. 
>
>A person is more than just a thinking machine.

   Nope. Just because the computing elements are
   wet and gooey changes nothing - it's mechanical,
   it can be reproduced by any other kind of
   mechanical system ... even Penroses "quantum
   variations". 
 
>>>>   It's kinda one of those "you know it when
>>>>   you see it" things. Whip out an 8.9 month
>>>>   fetus and you see a 'person', a human baby.
>>>
>>>Correct.  Whip out an 8.9 month fetus and you have a birth and a
>>>resulting human being/baby/infant/person.
>>
>>   Odd ... you can stick IN an endoscope and see
>>   the exact same baby ....
>
>No.  There are massive and irreversable changes that occur at birth.
>One of which is a massive influx of sensory impressions that may be
>what triggers consciousness.

   They get sensory information even inside a womb.
   It gets processed ... in a "human" manner by a
   "human" brain. It's probably BORING in there, but
   it's not entirely isolated. EEG readings show that
   fetal brains are active, not "turned off". 

   There's a relatively new technology called "functional
   MRI" which makes it possible to view selected chemical
   processes in living tissues - including brain metabolism.
   Doesn't do any harm, unlike x-rays or PET scans. Soon,
   if they haven't already, they're gonna do fMRI on fetuses
   and see exactly what's going on in their heads. The
   results should be interesting ... 

>>   Little children over about a year old soon realize
>>   that just because an object disappears from their
>>   view doesn't mean it ceases to exist. I trust you
>>   can do better than a 1-year-old ... 
>
>I can see you have no desire to discuss facts.

   That was a fact. 

>>>>   Whip out an embryo and you DON'T see it.
>>>
>>>That is 'cause it will be an abortus, a stillborn.
>>
>>   Not ready for prime time ... a non-'person', tissue.
>>   Abort it at your leisure, I'll not complain. 
>
>Yet it is functionally the same as the 8.9 month fetus.  And both
>embryo and fetus are functionally different from you or I or a
>newborn.

   There's a DRASTIC difference in brain size and organization
   between an embryo and a late-term fetus. They are NOT
   "functionally the same" by any objective measure. There
   are indeed differences between the brain of a late-term
   fetus (or newborn) and an adult human. Thing is, the
   newborn is considered "close enough" to warrant legal
   protection ... and the fetus which the newborn was an
   hour before rates the same protections because there's
   just no measurable difference. 

>You have not given *any* reason to allow the abortion of an embryo but
>not that of a fetus, other than this 'personhood' which you do not
>seem to be able to define.  

   Sure I've given reasons ... brain organization, 'cognitive
   potential'. An embryo doesn't have it - a late-term fetus
   does. By around month 4.5, it begins to get fuzzy about
   what the fetus has and doesn't have ... so that's a good
   time to start thinking about fetal rights. 

>>>Leave either in the woman and all you have is a pregnant woman.
>>
>>   No ... somewhere along the way you get a "co-person",
>>   two people occupying the same space and vital resources.
>
>Co-Persons?  The fetus is not a person so how could the pregnant woman
>be a co-person?

   A late-term fetus is a 'person' by any objective measurement.
   It's brain organization isn't any less complicated an hour
   before 'birth' (pick yer method) than an hour afterwards.
   Indeed, conventional birthing often causes a small amount
   of brain damage, so the fetus is probably 'smarter' than
   the newborn. 

>>   That 'co-persons' exist IS an annoyance, true, but
>>   that's what we have. 'Co-persons' also exist in the
>>   guise of inseperable conjoined twins or 2-headed
>>   people. On a wetware level, people with true multiple
>>   personalities are 'co-persons'. 
>>
>>   (Hey, if you think THAT's bad, just wait until they
>>   finally implant those goddamned cell phones and we
>>   all become 'Borg' ... one extended mind, many bodies) 
>
>Anytime you want to come to reality I'll be waiting.

   25 years from now, I think you'll be *shocked* at
   what compromises "reality" ... 

>>>That
>>>part of the woman that causes the pregnancy does not evince a
>>>personality.  The pregnancies vary, but that is not evidence of
>>>different embryos/fetuses.
>>
>>   ??? They're ALL different. No two people are 'wired' alike
>>   and no two fetuses are either. Admittedly, there's not much
>>   that goes on in-utero, but what does get in winds up being
>>   processed in its own unique way by each fetal brain. 
>
>There is no personality involved.  Which is why babies *can* be
>switched at birth.  No personality = no person.

   Apparently you have neglected all the recent studies which
   show that the bulk of 'personality' is genetic rather than
   learned. We're pre-wired ... extensively so. The house is
   already built, all we do later is add a coat of paint. 

   Now if you mean "babies don't know nothin'" then that would
   be more correct ... but then all of us have knowledge gaps
   (some more than others it appears) yet they don't mean we
   can be arbitrarily executed. 

>>>>   The transition, the shift in the balance of
>>>>   features and characteristics from mere 'stuff'
>>>>   to 'person', happens somewhere during the
>>>>   gestation. Try to apply black and white
>>>>   thinking to a continous, analog process and
>>>>   you'll never get it right.  
>>>
>>>No, the transistion happens at birth, when the fetus becomes a
>>>biologically separate and independent individual organism, displaying
>>>it's own characteristics that distiguish it from all other babies.
>>
>>   That's a political/legal definition. It's *convenient*.
>>   Has nothing to do with reality however ... 
>
>Sorry, but I have read of the transformations and changes that occur
>at birth.  I have looked at the definitions of organism, person,
>individual, one, entity, member, being, etc.. and birth is, in
>reality, a marked change of state.

   It's a change in INPUT ... but then I get a change in
   input if I step outside. It's the mind receiving the
   input I'm concerned about - and I'd rather that mind
   not see a stainless-steel vaccuum attachment plunging
   into its skull. It would think and feel exactly what
   any newborn would think and feel because it's brain
   is the same. 

>>>>>> Clearly "personhood" - moral and 
>>>>>>hopefully legal - is something that *develops* as the
>>>>>>pregnancy advances. 
>>>>>
>>>>>Says who?
>>>>
>>>>   Says ME. I count. I also plan to spread the word,
>>>
>>>Yeah, and people will be laughing at you and pointing out that you
>>>have no idea of what you are blathering about.
>>
>>   Just wait ...
>
>Been waiting 30 years.....

   Won't be much longer ... the broad-based support for
   the ban on "partial birth" abortions signaled the
   turning point. The trend over the past 15 years for
   women to bear even unwanted children rather than have
   them aborted was the prelude. Later-term fetuses WILL
   have legal status very soon now - and with the approval
   of the majority rather than by any court/legislative
   coup. 

>>>>   I'd suggest you accept my proposed compromise. It's
>>>>   rational, sensible, functional and something all
>>>>   'sides' of this idiotic debate might grudgingly
>>>>   accept. 
>>>
>>>What compromise?  So far all you have done is shown that you do not
>>>understand the comcept of 'person.'    
>>
>>   Sigh ... it is you who are carefully trying to define
>>   'person' in a way that will allow you to chop up fully
>>   developed children. If this were 1860 you would surely
>>   be defending slavery, claiming that negros weren't
>>   REALLY people.
>
>Again with the lies and insults in lieu of rational discussion.  Why
>are Pro-Lifers such total wastes of time?

   If I were a 'pro-lifer' then I'd be saying that even
   fertilized eggs were "people". I'm all in favor of
   abortion rights ... just not ALL of the way through
   the pregnancy.