Re: Abortion

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Anderson) wrote:

>On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 12:36:07 GMT, BlackWater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>And what are the requirements for "person"?
>>
>>   A variety of abilities and 'potentials' too
>>   numerous (and sometimes too vague) to list.
>
>A person is that which evinces a personality, the 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 ?  :-) 

   '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'. 
 
>>   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 ....

   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 ... 

>>   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. 

>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.

   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) 

>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. 

>>   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 ... 

>>>> 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 ...

>>   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. In any event, that way of thinking isn't
   going to stand much longer ... indeed even many nomimally
   'liberal' 'pro-choice' people found they couldn't support
   so-called 'partial birth abortions'. Total polarization
   on this issue hasn't got us anywhere except at each
   other throats. In the end, it's not an issue that can
   be resolved emperically, we're gonna just have to DECIDE
   something ... something everybody can (grudgingly)
   live with.