From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Consensus stuff - the real reasoning
Date: 10 Nov 92 02:51:17 GMT
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <BxEyo4.Fn9@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
> 
> 	First of all, let me point out that his posting of a discussion
> that took place in private email without my consent (without even my
> knowledge until after the fact) is in clear violation of nettiquette.
> I did not authorize his posting of my thoughts, and he posted information
> without any real background to it. 

I would apologize for this if I felt there was any reason to.  Bruce
was having a discussion with me, and I summarized it publicly.
Nettiquette ain't for me.

>The question of a soul is a side issue
> that does not IN ANY WAY reflect my reasoning as a whole. To understand
> what Brian posted correctly, one would have to have knowledge of the
> entire discussion. Many important things were left out. His post as
> a whole (which he sent me a copy of) is a misrepresentation of my
> stance.

On misrepresentations: Now that Bruce has overcome his problem of
communicating with others, I think it is safe to say that I 
misrepresented his stance.  The way the "soul" thing got into the 
"discussion" was like this:  I said zygotes are not self aware.  
Bruce said they might, if they had a soul.  I said that was no reason 
to outlaw abortion (ie it is not right to outlaw abortion simply 
because a soul might be present at conception).  Then the rigamarole 
about "any reasonable person should consider that it is possible a 
zygote may have a soul" began, and it never really stopped since 
Bruce couldn't seem to  defend his position from any other point.  
C'est la vie.

> 3) To ensure that the rights of every human being are protected, we must
>    obtain a definition for a "person". There are certain requirements on
>    any such definition if there is to be a consensus. 
>     b) Any definition must not exclude beings currently considered persons.
>        Such definitions as "two arms and two legs" or Brian's favorite
>        "capable of having face to face coital sex" do not fit the bill, as
>        there are people who do not fit these descriptions now.

A word on sex and misrepresentation:  Bruce said that we may as well
define a person as being something that has human DNA since there
were certain characteristics that were constant with the human DNA.
I went on to say that there are more genetic variations than there
are exceptions to people who are able to engage in face to face coitus
(the only non-humans known to do this are apes, an even that's extremely
rare), so the def'n of person may as well be "something that is built
to have face to face coitus"...  As far as I'm concerned, both
definitions are ridiculous.

> 	Once again, I will say that if you wish to discuss my reasoning,
> you should pick the first point with which you disagree, and discuss
> that point only. Discussing point 6 is useless if you disagree with
> any of the previous points, as point 6 is based upon them.

If you should respon to Bruce, do abide by this rule of his as he will
absolutely refuse to discuss anything you say after you disagree with
an early point.

Enough sludge-slinging for one night!

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion