From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: STEVE wants it both ways:
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:38:48 GMT

In <1992Nov8.034942.7016@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:

>In article <nyikos.720807702@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>In <1992Oct29.171012.6474@midway.uchicago.edu>
>>eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
>>>In article <Bwvzz4.Fwv@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
>>>kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>>>eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:

Note to people "playing attributions": before I deleted some of
the attributions up there, there was one with five >'s up there,
while the max below was also five.  So if I am to be hanged on not
deleting superfluous attributions, Beth will have to hang with me.

[As far as I know, this is the only bit of wrongdoing with which
I can be rightfully charged.  None of the "Peter, get your attributions
right" reprimands or claims that I charged Adrienne with forgery holds
water.]

>>>>Anonymous sperm donors arguably "helped create a zygote" as
>>>>do the doctors who do the fertilization, but neither are held responsible
>>>>when the "zygote turns into a child".  Egg donors arguably "help create a
>>>>zygote" but neither they nor the doctors who fertilize and implant the 
>>>>egg are held responsible when the "zygote turns into a child".  The fact
>>>>is the man is NEVER involved in the creation of a child, and his involvemnt
>>>>in the creation of what BECAME a child is that of a supplier of raw material.

>>>The fact is that the man created a zygote which became a child.

>>When does this happen, according to you, Beth?  Do you consider the
>>19th century designation "unborn child" to be obsolete, for instance?

>Mm....  I think that in standard usage the word "baby" includes or can
>include emrbyoes and fetuses; I'd consider it a stretch to go any
>earlier than that.  But in standard usage the word "child" doesn't
>include fetuses; I've read exactly two usages that weren't in the
>context of an abortion discussion.  Think of it this way: one talks
>about a pregnant woman's "baby" but when asked how many "children" she
>has you would expect an answer along the lines of "Three plus one on
>its way" -- which implies that the z/e/f's not a child yet.

Well, a 1872 Colorado State Supreme court decision used that language,
in the context of abortion, and the term goes back many centuries.  One
medieval case I quoted in talk.abortion a while back used the term
"living child" for a fetus in a woman "big with child."

Now don't tell me you haven't seen the phrase "big with child" before!

>>>Your examples of sperm donation and egg donation are cases where it
>>>was understood *before the process began* that the someone else had
>>>assumed the father's responsibilities.

>>I'm in agreement with Beth here.  And here:

>>>I'll support removing the father's responsibility when someone else is
>>>willing to take on those responsibilities, regardless of whether they
>>>do so before or after those responsibilities exist.

>>>>>The woman can kill the z/e/f before she has any responsibility to it.
>>>>>The obligations weren't destroyed; they never existed.

>>I am agreed in principle, but not in detail.  I say the responsibility
>>should exist NLT than when brainwaves are detectable; Beth says they 
>>should exist when myelination is well underway.  6 weeks vs. 6 months, 
>>and I have a feeling we'll be agreeing to disagree on this for a long time 
>>to come.

>Do three neurons in a test tube have rights?  You can detect "brainwaves"....

Has anyone compared these brainwaves to the ones Bernstine and Borkowski
detected in embryos of 40-odd days gestation?  Bernstine said in his book,
_Fetal Electrocardiography and Electroencephalography_ that these waves
were not dissimilar from adult sleep spindles.

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: talk.abortion