From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 22:41:17 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

Eric writes:
>Brian writes:
>> Eric writes:

>The other thing I feel is important in the discovery of this point is that
>it must happen
>at the same point for every human.  The _only_ point like this is when a
>human was
>conceived.

NO!  There are LOTS of points which take place in everybody's life!
Birth, for example!  What, you say that since some fetuses die before
birth, then we have to set personhood at a point before any fetuses
can die?  WHY?  Why do you have this compelling NEED to call all
fetuses PERSONS?

>... I am saying that a human life starts at a very specific point.  That
>point is the same for everyone.  That point is conception.

YES!  I agree with you!  Human life starts at conception!  I've agreed
with you many times before on this VERY SAME POINT!  When does
PERSONHOOD start, though?  Or have you conveniently forgotten the
point of this whole debate?

>> You've ignored our reasoning and flatly dismissed our
>> arguments, and you keep asserting this.  Nobody else agrees with you.
>
>I have not flatly dismissed your arguements.  What I have flatly dismissed
>is the support you
>have used.  You have been unable to explain to me why the support you have
>used for
>your arguements is correct.  You obviously believe that they are.  All I
>ask is that you
>explain it clearly and I will try to point out something that you may be
>missing which will
>then show why that particular support is not valid...and on we go...

NO!  Because for every example I can come up with, you can find
something COMPLETELY irrelevant to nitpick about.  Go back and read
your post in which you 'responded' to my argument defining myelination
as the start of personhood.  Can you honestly tell me that you didn't
flatly dismiss my arguments there?

At least you're admitting that you ARE flatly dismissing _something_.
It's not good for your credibility to flatly dismiss anything I
thought was important enough to bring up; at least give a good REASON
for disagreeing!

And please start breaking your lines in a more reasonable location!

>I have considered that myl...(however you spell it) point over these past
>few days, assuming that you could come up with support that would show it
>to work better then any other.

Gee, if you'd considered it THAT MUCH, then you'd at least know how to
spell 'myelination', then, wouldn't you?  Or did you just think about
it as you lay awake in bed at night, but you didn't post anything about it?

>I would like to ask you a question:
>
>Would your point occur at the exact same moment (relative to conception)
>for every human?

Heck, no!  Why should it?  What's that got to do with anything?

>> You keep using your own definition of 'interference'.  Stop it.  Use
>> the dictionary definition, or else use a different word.
>
>I'm sorry, but I don't believe that another word exists that would fit what
>I am
>trying to say.

Then use a bunch of words!  Use all you want, we'll make more.

If you can define what you mean in plain English, then please
substitute your definition in the place of 'interference' wherever
you'd use it.

If you can't define what you mean, then how the devil; do you expect
us to be able to figure it out?!

>> You say that 'bad interference' would include having a fertilized egg
>> fail to implant.  We tell you that lack of action can't be
>> 'interference', and that fertilized eggs usually fail to implant when
>> they're incorrectly formed in some way.  You then say that to remove
>> interference, you're going to do something that will someday make
>> _all_ fertilized eggs implant.  I can't help but think this is a very
>> loony and poorly-considered idea.
>
>A lack of action doesn't have anything to do with the way I am using
>intference which is what that critism does not apply to what I am saying. 

Huh?  Say that again?

Funny, I remember you saying that "anything which causes a child not
to be born is interference"...

>I have stated how I am using the word
>several times to you and if you need me to do it again, I will.

I thought you said that there's no other word to describe what you mean?
Yes, please state again how you're using it.

>Why do you believe that this is a loony and poorly-considered idea?  
>I am willing to listen.

Primarily because eggs that don't implant usually don't implant for a
reason, such as being defective in some way.  Letting such a defective
egg wash out of the woman's body naturally is a heckuvalot better than
forcing it to implant, then aborting it, like you're proposing.  Do
you see why?

>> You haven't met our conditions.  My conditions are that you give us a
>> definition of 'person' that (a) doesn't have the word 'human' or any
>> form thereof in it, and (b) distinguishes 'people' from animals.  In
>> two weeks, you've yet to do this.
>
>It is possible for a person to be an animal also.  At least I have seen
>nothing in either my definitions that would prohibit this.

Hey, wait a minute, now.  I thought you said that a 'person' is
synonymous with 'human'?  That a 'person' is anything that has human
DNA and that is conceived?

Okay, for the sake of argument, we'll drop half of that definition,
leaving us with: A 'person' is anything that has been conceived.
Well, gosh; of course all animals are people now, too.

If there's more to your definition, please state it NOW, or forever
hold your peace.

>My definition of a person is that it is something that must be given moral
>consideration.

Oh, NO!  We're back to THIS old thing again?

Grammatically, your sentence is poor.  It's similar to "An apple is
something that is red."  This, of course, boils down to "An apple is
red," so let's boil your sentence down to "A person must be given
moral consideration."

Doesn't tell us what a person IS, does it?  (Unless you're trying to
say "A person is something.")

>I don't know
>exactly
>why we are "persons" - I don't think anyone (except God) knows why or will
>ever know why.  What I do know is that we are persons...when does this
>happen?

No, no, you're not getting it...  'Personhood' isn't something we
observe in the universe and try to explain.  It's a concept WE make up
for OURSELVES.

>> We keep saying your definitions are useless, unclear, and not
>> understandable.  You disagree, and then ignore our complaints.
>
>The reason why they are useful is because they help support what I am
>saying.  The best
>way for you to show why they are useless is to try to apply them to other
>situations (it is possible you know) and then go on to demonstrate how it
>would lead to silly beliefs.

Okay, I'll do that:

"Personhood begins at conception."  That fly was conceived.  Don't
swat it, or I'll have you executed for murder!

"A person is something which deserves moral consideration."  Well,
obviously that fetus doesn't deserve any moral consideration, so
obviously it's not a person.

"There exists good interference and bad interference."  If a woman
wants a child, but it is found that the fetus is badly malformed, and
she aborts it, then is this good or bad interference?  Why does it
matter?  Who are you to say whether it's good or bad?

Any questions?

>> You won't explain _yourself_ in clear terms!  We're frustrated.  And
>> you keep repeating yourself, as in this post of yours that I'm
>> following up to -- you just keep saying the same things over and over
>> again in the same words, hoping (I suppose) that if you repeat
>> yourself often enough, we'll finally understand you.
>
>I'll try using different words please point out the ones you feel I am not
>explaining clearly.

'Interference'.  'Person'.  'Moral consideration'.


I believe that there's probably some part of your argument that you're
not bothering to tell us, and thus it's making the rest of your
argument look very silly.  I also believe that you don't have a clue
about what we're saying.

You can prove me wrong on both accounts, though.  To start, please
paraphrase, in as many words as it takes, what my position is on
personhood.  Tell me how I would respond to various questions from you
on the subject.  I don't believe you can do it.

     << Brian >>

-- 
_/_/_/       Brian Kendig  Macintosh Jedi           Live never to be ashamed
 _/_/   Starfleet Captain  Oracle Employee         if anything you do or say
  _/  Intrepid Adventurer  Saturn SL2 Owner    is published around the world
      bskendig@netcom.com  Wizard of Frobozz    -- even if what is published
    Princeton '92! BSE/CS  Writer/Actor/Singer                   is not true.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39267 alt.rush-limbaugh:6146