From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about Fundies
Date: 17 Nov 92 12:14:00 CST

In article <nyikos.721972639@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Nov11.102809.21046@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>
>>In article <nyikos.721352819@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
[deletia]
>>>A sentient fetus is a "person" in the phenomenological sense of the
>>>word.
>>This statement is not correct.
>It is correct, you simply refuse to seriously entertain the possibility
>that there is such a thing as a sentient fetus.  
>
Tell us just how you know what possibilities I have
entertained.  For exra credit, ponder the difference
between entertaining a possibility and concluding
a demonstrable truth.

>>It has yet to be demonstrated that a fetus is capable of
>>sentience.
>
>So?  It has yet to be demonstrated that your whole life has not been
>a dream and that we are not all just figments of your imagination.
>
I refuse to believe that my imagination is warped
enough to come up with something like you.

>>  Even if a fetus could be shown to posess sentience,
>>in a phenomenological sense, the 'experience' of the fetus would 
>>hardly be comparable to the experience of born persons.  A fetus 
>>does not experience 'being-in-the-world'.  There is also a clear
>>distinction between the phenomenological self-awareness of one's 
>>own personhood and the recognition of the personhood of 'others'.
>
>None of this makes an iota of difference to me.  And by the way,
>Gilbert Ryle, author of _The Concept of Mind_, would have claimed
>that your last sentence is gibberish.  Not that I agree with him, I just
>want to point out that you are making a doctrinaire statement ["This
>statement is not correct" was another one.] about something whose
>meaning is less than clear to everyone.
>
Seems perfectly clear to me.  Anyone else out there
who thinks/feels that the experience of acknowledging/
relating to 'others' is identical to the experience of 
self?  There may be some soul in Samadhi reading this 
noisegroup, but that would be most surprising.

BTW, PHoney, would the statement, 'A sentient fetus is a 
"person" in the phenomenological sense of the word.'
meet the same qualifications for gibberish?  I think it
would, Thou Hypocrite.

>>A fetus does not attain 'otherness' until birth, except for those 
>>who regard the personhood of the woman as completely transparent.
>
>Pseudo-philosophy.  A 24-week premature child attains otherness
>before a 34-week fetus?  Tell me another one.

Absolutely, Peter.  Unless you regard the body of the
mother as insignificant and transparent.
This is one of the reasons why even a healthy preemie
_never_ goes through a stage approximating a normal
newborn.  By the time they reach that developmental
level, they have lost the 'newness' and attained a
tiny bit of 'world-wisdom'.  Trust me on this; I am
speaking from experience.  'Otherness' comes with birth.

>
>>It is possible that the woman carrying the fetus may regard it
>>as 'other', though in doing so she would probably experience a
>>profound sense of alienation from her own body.
>
>Staple pro-abortion propaganda, dressed up in philosophical language.

Tell me about the experience of _your_ pregnancies.
Did you regard the fetus as 'other' after quickening?
Did you feel violated by the movements of the 'other'
within you?  Did you have a profound sense of another
person within your body the moment conception was
complete?
>
>>  The transition
>>from connectedness to 'otherness' is, in fact, not complete
>>psychologically at parturition for some women.  Hence, the 
>>lifelong distress that affects many women who give up their babies 
>>for adoption.
>
>Can't shake the feeling that her child, now grown up, is still a 
>part of her body?  No matter how you dress it up, it's the same
>stinking pro-abortion propaganda.
>
I merely assert that the psychological connection is 
not always completely severed at birth.  Do you deny this?
Do you have any idea how misongynic you sound when 
you disparage the real experiences of women in 
this hateful manner?
Do you hate women who give up their babies for adoption
enough to totally ignore their pain?

>>It has been argued that it is possible for others to interact
>>experientially with a fetus while it is still in utero.  I
>>would point out, however, that such exchanges  _always_
>>involve some interaction with the physical person of the 
>>pregnant woman.
>
>So what?  The same is true of a breastfeeding baby.
>
Huh?  Babies don't breastfeed 24 hours a day Peter.
When they aren't nursing, other folk besides the
mother can hold the kid, talk to her, make her
smile.  Even if the mother goes away. 

>>  From the perspective of all outsiders, the
>>'otherness' of a fetus is completely derivational from the
>                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>experience of treating in some way with the body of the
>>pregnant woman.
>
>This statement is not correct.  If I step into a darkened room
>while a sonogram of a baby is being shown, what sense is there
>in what you say?
>
If you mean a baby, what does that have to do with
the experience of seeing a sonogram of a fetus?
If you mean a fetus, will you not be seeing some
tissues surrounding that fetus that belong to 
some other entity?

It never ceases to amaze me how far you misogynists
are willing to go in making the woman invisible
and insignificant. 

>>  It is also extremely difficult to assess 
>>the quality of such 'experiences' for the fetus, since the
>>memory of 'post-fetuses' so rarely includes such things.
>
>Ditto the first few months of birth.  Are you ready to support
>legislation allowing infanticide for this reason?
>
I'm not even going to dignify that question with
a response.

muriel
standard disclaimer

Newsgroups: alt.atheism