From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion
Date: 16 Sep 92 00:13:20 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College, Ft. Collins, CO 80523

In article <1992Sep14.201543.28843@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
|> In  <Sep14.175120.69767@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>  sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
|> > In article <1992Sep12.223712.29505@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larr
|> > |> In  <Sep12.080031.56284@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
|> > |> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
|> > |> > In article <fzmnh9k.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
|> > |> > >
|> > |> > >Here is one difference between slavery and abortion.  A slave is a walking
|> > |> > >talking, thinking person that can actually say that it doesn't want to be
|> > |> > >a slave.
|> > |> >
|> > |> >      In short: one is, in your arbitrary opinion, a human being sufficientl
|> > |> > like you to deserve a right to life, while the other (again in your arbitra
|> > |> > opinion) is a human being not sufficiently like you to deserve a right to l
|> > |>
|> > |> One is a human being; the other is not.  (Using the normal meaning of the
|> > |> term "human being".)
|> >
|> >      This is a factual error.
|> 
|> No, since I specified using the *normal* meaning of "human being".

	The "normal" meaning, so far as I know, is that a human
being is a member of the human species, just like a dog is a
member of the dog species and an ape is a member of the ape
species.

|> > Medically, a human being begins at conception
|> > and ends at death.
|> 
|> By the same definition you're using, a spermatozoa is a human being.

	A spermatozoon is not a conceived human being.  Given
nutrition, it will never develop into an adult human.

|> > |> >      Prove, if you will, that walking and talking and thinking are
|> > |> > prerequisistes to personhood.
|> > |>
|> > |> Why are you asking him to prove something he didn't claim?  A fetus can't
|> > |> walk, can't talk, can't think (certainly not in the first two trimesters),
|> > |> and is not a person (ditto).  There was no claim that the first three are
|> > |> prerequisites for the fourth.
|> >
|> >      Fair enough.  What, then, are the prerequisites for personhood, in your
|> > opinion?  Explain.
|> 
|> Ability to think.  (Note that a sleeping or comatose person has the
|> *ability*, even if they're not exercising it at the moment.  A fetus
|> (prior to 24 months for sure) doesn't have the hardware; it lacks the
|> physical capability to think.)

	Why is the ability to think a necessary prerequisite to
personhood?  Because you say so?
	So the severely retarded are out?  And newborns are out?
	And if the ability to think is what makes a person, then
Einstein must have been twice as much of a person as you and me,
with twice as many rights.
	A fetus has the capability of thought, even if that
capability is not immediately manifest, even if it won't be
manifest for a month or two.  Don't kill it, and eventually it
will think.  Or do you set some sort of time limit on how long a
being has to produce a thought before you kill it?
	A newly dead man has the "hardware" but by no means is he
a person.  Having the hardware is insufficient.
	If you say the "ability to think" is what is required for
personhood, then how does "hardware" necessarily fit into the
picture?  Can't you conceive of a being with the capability for
sublime thought but no "brain" per se?  If you agree, then you
must admit that a brain is not necessary for personhood.
	Second, isn't it possible that a being might have the
ability to think even though no outward test will prove that
capability?  For example, trees might be able to think; they might
be quite wise; but they do not have the ability to express that
thought.
	And if it is possible for a being to be a person even
though no outward test can prove it, then it must be possible for
a fetus to be a person even though no test you can dream up will
prove it true or false.
	So personhood is essentially unprovable one way or another
by your "thinking" standard.  Since your standard is unprovable
and therefore necessarily subjective, why can't other people come
up with their own subjective definitions and then apply them as
ruthlessly as you apply yours?  Or is that a right you reserve
exclusively to Larry Margolis?
	Why isn't "birth" the standard for personhood?  Why not
"viability"?  Why not "being the product of an exchange of love"? 
Why not "the ability to perform tensor calculus"?  Why not "desire
and ambition"?  Why?  Why?  Why?

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity