From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 23:46:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.215513.27822@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>From article <1993Jan8.182121.11520@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
>by mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran):
>> In article <1993Jan7.011818.5380@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
>> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>>>From article <1993Jan6.184709.10601@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
>>>by mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran):
>>>> In article <1993Jan6.174658.753@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
>>>> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>>>>>From article <1993Jan6.055047.14767@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
>>>>>by mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran):
>>>>>> In article <1993Jan5.211703.20856@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
>>>>>> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>
>[Deletions necessary and performed reluctantly.  The perceived
>rights of the posters were not considered.  Not even for a second.]
>
>>>> 1) Are *our* communications nothing more then responses to situations?
>>>> Yes, ours are (hopefully) more sophisticated. It doesn't make a 7 week
>>>> old babies efforts less meaningful. 
>
>>>> 2) I've never seen a fetus that could communicate at even the level of
>>>> a 7 week old baby.
>
>>>I'm just not sure.  I would think that when discussing personhood
>>>we would want to be more sure.  What if the difference between a
>>>fetus and a neonate is more quantitative than qualitative?
>
>> Can you provide an example of what you would call a quantitative
>> rather then qualitative difference?
>
>Well, consider the difference between our son at age 3 weeks vs. at
>7 weeks.  While it's possible that during this time he has acquired
>some completely novel cognitive functions accompanied by some new
>mode of communication, it's just as plausible that he's just getting
>better at using the skills/abilities he already has.  The former is
>a qualitative difference, the latter quantitative.  I do not mean to
>imply that I have any reason to believe that *all* fetuses and
>neonates are qualitatively the same.  But I do suspect that *some*
>fetuses are qualitatively capable of the same communication as
>neonates.  My conclusion: a philosophy of personhood based on
>the simple "ability to communicate" either needs a lot of massaging
>or is doomed to include fetuses as persons.
>
I think that if that were the *sole* criterion, you would be 100%
right. It's not, of course, but providing a definition of "personhood"
would require me to write a Peter Ny style 10,000 line article. And
even then it would only be a satisfactory definition to *me*.
As regards the qualitative/quantitative differences, I think it is a
combination of both. A neonate has sufficient development of the brain
to allow certain minimal communication. It does not have a fully
developed brain, however, as I'm sure you'll agree. We know, (as well
as we know anything concerning the brain) that a newborn has the
*strength* to stand erect, but not the co-ordination. The
co-ordination develops at the same time as mylination/devlopment of
areas of the cerebrum (you're neuroscience, I'm neonatology, you look
it up. ;) )

>>>[deleted, but good]
>
>>>> What I do object to is people (no, I'm not accusing you) who try to
>>>> legislate this. I don't see it as fit for legislation.
>
>>>I agree, although perhaps for different reasons than most.
>
>>>> Basically, I think the issue is adequately dealt with by medical
>>>> ethics and professional standards.
>
>>>I think you'd agree that complete laissez faire in terms of medical
>>>ethics is not necessarily the best way to operate.
>
>> No, complete reliance upon medical ethics is not perfect, and I don't
>> advocate it.
>> What I do rely on is the combination of medical ethics (which is
>> backed by some pretty stringent disiplinary measures when violated -
>> such as losing the license to practice) and the ability of the
>> individual considering abortion to make their own rational choices.
>> Instead of trying to legislate the issue, we would be better searved
>> by funding some efforts towards real solutions. I.E. some real
>> education for kids about sex and contraception, the realities of
>> children raising children, nad the optionis available if/when unwanted
>> pregnancies occur.
>
>Mark, you stupid pro-death twit!!!!!!  Oops.  Wait a second.  Darn.
>Looks like we agree on yet another point in our discussion.  Aren't
>we supposed to be flaming each other and insulting each other's
>ancestors?
>
Well, if you insist...
Steve, are you the first generation of your family to walk upright?
No, wait, I already used that one on PHoney... Lemme think a minute...
How about...
Have you renewed your subscription to _Inbread Mutants Quarterly_ yet?
There, your very own Personal Insult, created Originally, Just For
You. :)

>Seriously, I do have some qualms about unrestricted application of
>medical ethics.  However, I perceive that our disagreement is
>merely quantitative, not qualitative.  Get it?
>
I do, and it's going to spoil. the whole bloody debate for us... :) 
Seriously, if anybody can suggest a better alternative then relying on
the medical judgement opf the phsycian, and the situational judgement
of the pregnant woman, I'm all in favor of hearing about it.

>[Rest deleted.  Please read Mark's post.  Good stuff about life
>support and allowing people to die.]
>
--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion