From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:24:36 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <1993Jan6.160656.4107@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
by mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran):
> In article <C0FF9F.En8@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>
>>>In article <C0CBty.n1y@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>
>>>>I freely admit that a preborn baby human being is not LEGALLY defined
>>>>as a "person".  The moral and scientific evidence that it SHOULD be
>>>>defined as such has been beat to death already.  
>>>>
>>>When? All I've ever seen is medical and scientific evidence that it is
>>>*not* a person.

You have?!?  Don't you mean that you've seen medical and scientific
evidence that it *may not* be able to *do* certain things (like, e.g.,
think or possess myelin)?  Mark, personhood can be defined in various
ways by various people, depending not upon "medical and scientific
evidence" but upon the philosophies of the people making the definitions.
The most disturbing posts (to me) on t.a are the ones that cite
"medical and scientific evidence" that is neither medical nor 
scientific, to support a definition of personhood based on purely
philosophical assumptions.  In the next week or so I'll be posting
a summary of the mind/body problem designed to correct some glaring
errors propagated by many on t.a, and initiated, at least in part,
by that eminent and thoroughly objective neuroscientist, Carl Sagan.

If I define a person as any biological entity that possesses neurons
and demonstrably human chromosomes, I can provide reams of medical
and scientific evidence in support of fetal -- as well as embryonic --
personhood.  What does that prove?

>>>As in, not sentient etc. Care to show otherwise?

IMO, your first statement above should have read "medical and scientific
evidence that it is not sentient."  You'd still be out on a limb:
definitions of sentience are not easily agreed upon (at least within
t.a) and detecting it (or, more correctly, proving its absence) is
not obviously possible.

>>Is a newborn sentient?  Is a person in a coma sentient?   Is a sleeper
>>sentient?  Is a mentally retarded person sentient?  

> I'll address these one at a time.
> "Is a newborn sentient?"
> Yes. There is evidence that infants as early as a day or so are capable
> of recognising their mothers.

Is proving sentience as simple as that?  What happens if (when) fetuses
are shown to have this (or a similar) ability?

> "Is a person in a coma sentient?"
> Depends on the coma, and the amount of brain damage the person has
> suffered.

How can you know?  Remember _Awakenings_?

> "Is a sleeper sentient?"
> Certainly. Just wake them up if you doubt it...

Heh.  Then they're not a sleeper.

> "Is a mentally retarded person sentient?"
> Certainly. We have a gentleman working at the hospital in the kitchen
> who is MR, and I don't think anybody disputes his sentience. 

[deletia]
>>I really don't see the point.  It's all been said before.  Viability,
>>personhood, quickening, whatever...

> Nice vague answer, considering that all the evidence wrt the
> characteristics you mentioned indicate that a fetus (especially the
> 90+% of them which are aborted before the earliest possible date of
> viability) are in no way people.

Eh?  The guy's list is pretty pathetic, but I see 2 defined
characteristics therein:
	1.  Viability
	2.  Quickening
Both of these are easily demonstrable in many fetuses.  Your
statment "all the evidence ... indicate that a fetus ... are (sic)
in no way people" is clearly false.  If you tweaked it to read
"the 90+% of them which are aborted before the earliest possible
date of viability are in no way people" you'd still have the
problem of quickening, which predates viability.  If we were to
accept the list of criteria above for the determination of
personhood, we'd have a lot of fetuses qualifying.  And we
don't want that, do we, Mark?

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism