From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:34:40 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <1993Jan6.200941.13165@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
by mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran):
> In article <1993Jan6.183814.1552@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>>From article <1993Jan6.162256.4767@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
>>by mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran):
>>>>=vengeanc

[Deletia. Heart-breaking but necessary for brevity.]

>>>>It is my contention that the preborn baby is a person, and that it deserves
>>>>all rights implied by that label.  

>>> Yes, it certainly is your contention. Of course, you have yet to
>>> provide a shred of evidence that it is anything more then so much
>>> mindless blathering.

>>Mark, why on earth does he need to provide "evidence" in support of
>>the contention that a preborn baby is a person?  He's admitted that
>>this contention is not *legally* supported in 1993.  Clearly, he
>>is contending that personhood can be defined in such a way as to
>>include at least some preborn children.  What sort of "evidence"
>>do you expect?  What sort of "evidence" can you provide for your
>>own contention?  The best I can grant you is that your opinion is
>>that of the majority.

> Why should he? Because he has repeatedly posted "references available
> on request" and then ignored the requests for those references.

Point taken.  I even asked him to post the references.  One may
assume that he is in the library even as we speak (type), looking
under 'A' in the Funk and Wagnalls Encyclopedia.

"ntha tit" -- Mark Cochran, 1993.  :-)  |-)
I'm glad Mark has a sense of humor.

> For my part, I'll cite your own embryology texts. You know that an
> early z/e/f cannot possibly think, give ntha tit lacks the proper
> hardware.

I don't "know" this.  You don't "know" this.  NO ONE knows when an
embryo or fetus can think.  We can (and do) assume that the brain
is necessary for thought, and we have good evidence for the truth
of the assumption.  When is the brain sufficiently developed for
"thought" to be possible?  Now the assumptions get really wild, and
the outrageous claims of people like Carl Sagan are a disgrace to
science.

> Late term, it has developed the hardware, but has it the
> software? (the experiences, the intereaction with an environment) Late
> term, the issue of sentience (part of my definition of personhood)
> becomes debatable. And it would be necessary to prove the existance
> (not the lack of) that sentience before it could be considered a
> factor in termination of the pregnancy.

I think most people would agree that "sufficient reason to doubt"
the absence of sentience would be enough to refuse to pull the
plug on a comatose individual.  If (and I do mean if) we have
sufficient reason to doubt the absence of sentience (or pick any
other undefined phenomenon) in a given embryo/fetus, I argue we
have at least something to consider.

> The reson I insist on proof of
> presense, not the absense, is simple. Lack of proof in favor of
> existance can be considered to resonably show nonexistance.

True, it *can* be considered as such.  But should it?  Jeffrey James
Price just got a taste of the consequences of a similar (but admittedly
not equivalent) assertion.  (Check it out.  I predicted that he would
see a truckload of examples of the consequences of his idiotic
reasoning.  My favorite: "There are exactly 223 chemical elements.")

Condider: there is no evidence for the existence of any sort of
logical intelligence on the part of Mr. Price.  This, however,
does not "reasonably show" the nonexistence of intelligence.  It's
quite possible (perhaps likely) that the individual possesses
intelligence but chooses not to exercise it.

As a scientist, I can say that one of the scourges of science is
"negative data": I looked and couldn't find X.  Therefore it's not
there.  In fact, such data is considered insufficient (by many I've
spoken with) for the awarding of a Ph.D.

> This holds true in many areas. Lack of proof of the existance of
> a god has lead many peopel to conclude that no such being exists.

Universal application of that standard would lead to some pretty
bizarre conclusions, and would make the formation and testing of
hypotheses a truly peculiar experience.

>>[rest deleted cuz I have to go]

> Bummer. You're one of the few on the pro-life sidethat seems to be
> able to discuss rationally and intelligently. The others just scream
> and draw flamage.

Heh.  I don't know whether to be flattered or not.  I suspect that I
should be a little depressed that there are so few pro-life advocates
who adhere to minimal standards for effective and profitable debate.
Thanks for the kindness.  Upon considering the source, I've decided
that I'm rather pleased.

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion