From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 05:28:30 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

Okay, Eric.  You keep saying my arguments are completely invalid
because I haven't shown anything wrong with your argument.  If you
really want me to attack your argument, then I will; read on.

Eric writes:
>Ray writes:
>>Eric writes:
>>>Brian writes:
>>>> Our debate centers around the question "At what point does a fetus
>>>> become a person?"  We've given you our stands on this, and our
>>>> reasoning, and how the points we choose (myelination or birth) can be
>>>> logically and legally supported.
>>>
>>>No they cannot.  You have yet to point out what was so wrong with my
>>>agruements against yours
>>
>>If you weren't so blind and could see past the end of your nose, you
>>would have noticed many such attempts by now.  I am of the opinion
>>that your prejudices are so strong you just can concieve of any reality
>>other than the one you believe in.
>
>Sure, there were attempts...but whenever I showed how those attempts weren't
>quite correct, all I heard was silence...what I am supposed to think about
>that?

There was 'silence' because we couldn't think of how to put our
arguments into any form that you'd consider.  You keep saying, "well,
what you claim doesn't match what I know is true, so your argument has
no point."  And thus you dismiss everything we have to say.

>>>> Every single argument we make for why a fetus is not a person is
>>>> immediately turned down by you.  You say, "well, the fetus is
>>>> obviously human, so you're wrong and your point is irrelevant."  This
>>>> is NOT the way to conduct a debate.
>>>
>>>The fetus is human...go back to basic biology if you don't believe me.
>>
>>BUT IS IT A _PERSON_?  READ WHAT IS _WRITTEN_.
>
>IMHO, yes.  It was conceived and therefore a person, IMHO.  

Okay.  So you're saying that 'person' == 'human'.

The dictionary definition of 'person' is "a human being, esp. as
distinguished from a thing or lower animal."  The bit about "a human
being" is tossed in there because that's the common everyday usage of
the term.  The philosophical definition of 'person', however, puts
more emphasis on the distinction, implying most generally that a
person is an entity which is self-aware (thus the term could
conceivably apply to non-human entities as well).  Since the whole
abortion issue centers around 'personhood', we're using the more
specialized definition here.

Are you saying that anything which has been conceived is self-aware?
Be careful how you answer: you're not allowed to change the definition
of 'person', although you can pick other words to describe your
position as long as you use them with the same meaning that a
philosophical dictionary says they should have.

If you want to stick to Webster's definition, then how is a human
zygote or embryo distinguished from a fish or chicken zygote or
embryo?  In some way other than DNA, please, because if you base the
difference on nothing more than just genetic code, you're back to
equating 'person' with 'human', which isn't the way many of the rest
of us think of it.

I believe that a fetus becomes a 'person' at myelination because
that's the first time that the 'wiring' in its head even exists to
allow it the possibility of being self-aware.  It might actually
become self-aware later, in which case I would no longer call
myelination the start of 'personhood', but there's no serious chance
at all of it becoming self-aware any earlier.

>>>> And you can't batter our arguments into submission by coming up with
>>>> wild hypotheses and outrageous claims.
>>>
>>>Which hypotheses are wild and why?
>>>Why claims are outrageous and why?
>>
>>The supposition that someday _all_ embryos will implanted.  (for example)
>
>Do you deny that there is research, that will someday be successful in
>allowing all conceptions to come to term?

Yes.  I deny it.  Maybe there is ongoing research to help couples who
are having difficulty conceiving, and this would mean finding a way to
ensure that a zygote emplants, but I refuse to believe that someday
_no_ woman _anywhere_ will _ever_ expel a fertilized egg through
menstruation.

If you disagree, would you please provide references to documentation
supporting your claim?

>>The supposition that only you are correct in your belief that personhood
>>begins at conception (despite that many problem to this belief that you've 
>>ignored).
>
>I have yet to see some argue effectively against it...

'Personhood' does not mean 'life', nor does it mean 'humanity'.

I feel that I've given you a reasonably strong argument for why a
fertilized egg cannot be called a 'person'.  All you have done is to
assert that a fertilized egg is a person because it is human.  Could
you please explain your logic behind equating personhood with humanity?

>>>>  Jennifer said that birth can
>>>> be marked as the start of personhood because that's when the human
>>>> life begins to support itself and breathe air; you turn around and ask
>>>> what happens if we learn to breathe water someday?  Get real!  
>>>
>>>I am being real...that liquid exists!!!  Ever see the movie The Abyss? 

That's not the point.  The point is that someone marked a logical
beginning of personhood to be the time at which the human begins to
breathe outside the mother, and you nitpicked.  Let me make this
specific instance clearer: Before birth the fetus is obtaining all its
oxygen from the mother's body; after birth it is obtaining the oxygen
on its own.  Even if we someday breed babies with gills, it will still
be obtaining the oxygen, and other vital nutrients, on its own.

Your nitpicking demonstrates that you're giving no effort at all to
understanding our points.  Stop for a moment and try to realize what
it is we're getting at, and don't just keep tossing 'what if's at us.

>>An early (human) embryo strongly resembles an early fish embryo, pig
>>embryo, chicken embryo.  Most people (i.e., you) cannot tell the 
>>difference by observation alone.  Basic biology which _I_ learned in 
>>high school.
>
>Right.  But it is irrelvant how much a human embryo resembles anything.  The
>critical point it that there are very different things. 

How is a human embryo "very different" from a chicken embryo?

>If we based everything upon observation (using only the naked eye), we would
>still believe that the earth was the center of the universe.  

There's a rule of thumb that's frequently used around here called the
"Duck Rule": "If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then
chances are it _is_ a duck."  In this case, the human embryo is
observationally little different from a chicken embryo, and it's
developmentally little different from a chicken embryo, so it is
little different from a chicken embryo.  On what grounds do you claim
that it _is_ different?

>>>I don't know I am right, but I do know that no one is even trying to prove
>>>me wrong - all I see are lame arguements that violate some basic
>>>fact.
>>
>>Name one "basic fact" that you've used.  Tell us what scientific research
>>supports your assertion that personhood (not "a human life") begins at
>>conception.
>
>That an early human embryo is _not_ an early fish embryo.  Simple enough. 

Huh?  From "a human is not a fish" you get "anything human who's been
conceived is a person"?  I didn't realize scientific research had
gotten so far!  ;)

>It is logic and the fact that all other points make no sense, IMHO.  For
>support, see other messages.

It appears that a great deal of people think your points make no
sense.  Therefore there's either something that every one of us is
missing, or else there's something that you're missing.  The law of
probability says that it's probably you who's not getting it.

     << Brian >>

-- 
_/_/_/       Brian Kendig  Macintosh Jedi           Live never to be ashamed
 _/_/   Starfleet Captain  Oracle Employee         if anything you do or say
  _/  Intrepid Adventurer  Saturn SL2 Owner    is published around the world
      bskendig@netcom.com  Wizard of Frobozz    -- even if what is published
    Princeton '92! BSE/CS  Writer/Actor/Singer                   is not true.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion