From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The origin of individual human beings
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:55:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1992Oct5.213021.29804@ncar.ucar.edu>, kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
|> >   =  sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
|> >> = In article <1b_p5lc.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
|> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> >> Because saying that embryologists say that a human life begins at conception
|> >> isn't particularly useful.  It is saying that a human life is that which
|> >> begins at conception because a human life begins at conception.  If you're
|> >> just going to _define_ a human life to begin at conception, then you might
|> >> _define_ with just as much validity a human life to begin at birth.
|> 
|> > Conception is the first time that a human individual is
|> > created, an individual who will, if not killed, eventually grow
|> > into an adult human.  At no time prior to conception is this the
|> > case, and at no time after.  BTW, if you have a documented
|> > statement from a reputable embryologist who says that a human
|> > individual is created at any time OTHER than at conception, I'd
|> > like to see your source.  In all my time on this net so far, I
|> > haven't seen any such thing.
|> 
|> You have a concept refered to as "human life", and for you this
|> refers to any f/e/z from conception onward.  OK, fine.  But so what?
|> This is an *extremely* broad definition, encompassing zygotes, embryos,
|> late-term fetus', infants, grown adults, brain-dead adults, physically
|> brainless fetus', sentient human beings, non-sentient human beings,...  
|> This definition is so broad that two things correctly catagorized as 
|> "human life" may very well have almost nothing in common.

	A member of the human species, medically speaking, is created at
conception and continues until death.  ALL human beings have at least that much
in common: they are all of the same species, not of different species.
	Of course, the medical fact that unborn children are human beings does
not establish that they have human rights, but it is my contention that they
should be recognized as having such rights.
	First, I maintain that there are some characteristics which certainly
prove personhood, like apparent awareness, ability to learn, communication.  Any
of these, and probably a great many other characteristics, would prove
personhood.  But I also argue that the absence of any or all of these
characteristics does not therefore necessarily DISPROVE personhood.  For example,
most everyone would agree that a newborn is a person, but what outward sign could
we use to prove such a proposition?  My dog can display MANY MANY more
characteristics typical of "persons" than can my three-week-old neice.  Is my dog
therefore more of a person than my neice?  I think common sense will tell us that
such a conclusion is ridiculous.  My neice IS a person, just as much of a person
and with just as much of a right to life as anyone.
	So there are some persons who cannot be objectively identified as persons.
	Then I argue that the human race is distinct from all other races in that
some humans are known to be persons; i.e., we know for certain that some human
beings are in fact persons.  The same cannot be said of any other species; no
member of any other species has ever shown awareness on a level with human
beings, or communication of anything approaching the level of human beings, etc,
etc.  It seems obvious that for a given class of beings, we must have some REASON
to believe they are persons before we can grant such recognition.  We can't get
around the necessity of this proposition.  A species must show some sign of
personhood before it can be regarded as consisting of persons.
	But, once persons have been identified in a given species, we know that
many members of that species may be persons even though no outward sign can prove
the proposition.  While necessity compels us to require a positive sign from
other species, there is no similar necessity for members of the human species --
and there is far more reason to believe that members of the human species are
persons.  Therefore, I conclude, we ought to recognize the personhood of the
unborn.
	I admit that I do not know exactly what is necessary and sufficient for
personhood, and I argue that you don't know either.  If you set personhood at a
certain level of awareness, I ask why you should be able to set the level and not
me.  What makes you special?  But if nobody can set the level, then all human
beings must be included in the set of persons, as I suggest.

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.abortion