From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, please clarify: zygotes are members of society
Organization: Boulder CO
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:38:48 GMT

>     = lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>    = kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) wrote:
LF>   = lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>BK>  = kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) wrote:
========================================================================
>BK>Next, I'll be bold and claim that, wrt to "personhood", the differences 
>BK>between a normal, born person and a zygote are enormous.  Care to disagree?

[note: does not answer the question]
LF>I don't know how you are defining "personhood", but now I'll make a bold 
LF>claim.  The differences between a normal adult, and a newborn baby are 
LF>enormous.  Care to disagree?

>>Yes - I disagree, unless you want to change the subject/context of this post.
>>Eg: on one level, the differences between me & my sister are enormous: 
>>I'm male & she's female, which could be considered a big difference, but 
>>wrt "personhood" or "members of society" (recall the context of the post?)
>>the differences between my sister & I are insignificant.

>So your argument is the following.
[...inaccurate, strawman, paraphrase hack-job omitted...]
>In otherwords, it is so, because you say it is so.  [...]

I thought I presented a fairly coherent argument, to reiterate:
First I've identified some major characteristics normally associated with 
"persons" or "members of society", namely autonomy, thoughts, feelings, 
sentience, etc.  Next I note that all *born* humans (infant or adult) 
have these qualities (barring severe physical problems) and note that 
zygotes have none of these qualities.  Finally, since zygotes apparently 
fail to have virtually all of the qualities normally associated with 
"persons", I conclude they can't be meaningfully considered "persons".

--------------------
>>My sister & I are both autonomous, thinking, feeling, learning, sentient
>>humans, AS IS ANY NORMAL INFANT.  

>Really?  How are you defining autonomous?  Doesn't it mean able to live on 
>one's own, without assistance?  Try dropping a normal infant in the middle of 
>a desert, and see how autonomous it is.  Actually, forget that.  Try leaving a 
>newborn infant in a house, alone for a few days.  You must be sure that since 
>it is autonomous it will be able to survive on its own.  

Defn "autonomous": existing independently, NOT inside a womb, NOT
   uniquely dependent upon and physically attached to a mother/carrier/host.
There a good chance if we drop *you* in the middle of a desert that you
would fair about as well as an infant.  Also, my grandmother needs about as
much care & attention at home as does an infant.  None-the-less, the
infant, you, & my grandmother are autonomous (wrt to the about defn).
Furthermore, the infant, you, and my grandmother are all thinking, feeling, 
learning, & sentient.  Put an infant, yourself, a paraplegic, my grandmother,
& a zygote-in-a-petri-dish together in a room, is it really so hard 
to identify the odd-man-out?  Lets see... 
o which one will die if it is not put inside & attached to a woman's womb?
o Which one has no brain?  
o Which one is not sentient?  
o Which one is completely oblivious to it's own existence?  
o Which one is physically incapable of any thoughts or feelings?

--------------------
>>I think these characteristics have 
>>everything to do with being a "person" or "member of society", and 
>>unlike born humans, adults or infants, ZYGOTES ARE NOT autonomous, 
>>thinking, feeling, learning, or sentient.  
>
>So are you against late 3rd trimester abortions?  At about 8 1/2 months?  

TO WANDER OFF THE SUBJECT, I think there a good chance that one could 
make a reasonable argument that an 8.5 month fetus is a "person".  
But this is *one* factor that should be taken under consideration wrt being 
for or against abortion.  On the other hand, TO GET BACK TO THE SUBJECT,
I have yet to hear a reasonable argument that a zygote (0.1 month old fetus)
is remotely similar to a "person" or a "member of society".

--------------------
>BK>Alternately, you can claim that zygotes are essentially the same as normal, 
>BK>born people, but you're going to have to explain away a lot of major 
>BK>differences and then deal with the fact that they have almost nothing 
>BK>in common.

LF>Of course zygotes are not the same as born people.  They are younger, and
LF>have not finished developing/growing yet.

"Younger"?!?  Is that the only difference you can detect?
>>That's a pretty flimsy explanation.
>>Sounds like your saying a zygote should be considered a "person" 
>>(or "member of society" or whatever) not because it is a person 
>>but because it might become one somewhere in the future.  

>No, I am saying that fetuses ARE (not will be) humans.  They may not be as 
>physically advanced as voting members of society, but then again, neither
>are newborn babies.

"Not as physically advanced"?  What is this?  Some spin-doctor code-phrase 
for "brainless, non-sentient, 16-celled, human zygote" ?
Zygotes certainly are "human", but whether "persons" or "members of society" 
is what I'm asking you to justify, not merely assert.  I've attempted 
to justified my opinions, will you attempt to justify yours?
All you've done so far is some hand-waving and subject changing.

And why do you keep replacing "zygote" with "fetus"?  Are you trying to
slip away from comparing (ZYGOTES vs. infants) vs. (infants vs. adults) ?
Can you deny that INFANTS & ADULTS ARE autonomous, thinking, feeling, 
learning, & sentient and ZYGOTES ARE NOT?  Can you deny that these qualities 
are generally associated with "personhood" and being a "member of society"?

--------------------
>You say that you are open to persuasion, and you also say that the possability 
>of you being wrong is the same as the possability that pigs live in trees.  
>Sounds real open minded to me.

Why do you repeatedly twist my words?  Is this a comprehension problem
or an integrity problem?  I make judgements based on available
evidence and reasoning.  Similar to the situation in which I have no 
available evidence or reasoning that leads me to believe pigs live in trees,
I have no available evidence or reasoning that leads me to believe 
zygotes could be reasonably considered "members of society".

Again: I challenge you to provide such evidence and/or reasoning.

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,alt.dads-rights