From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: The origin of individual human beings
Organization: Boulder CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:00:09 GMT

>|> >  = sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>|>    = kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
>      = sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>|> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|> > Conception is the first time that a human individual is
>|> > created, an individual who will, if not killed, eventually grow
>|> > into an adult human.  At no time prior to conception is this the
>|> > case, and at no time after.  {...]

>|> You have a concept referred to as "human life", and for you this
>|> refers to any f/e/z from conception onward.  OK, fine.  But so what?
>|> This is an *extremely* broad definition, encompassing zygotes, embryos,
>|> late-term fetus', infants, grown adults, brain-dead adults, physically
>|> brainless fetus', sentient human beings, non-sentient human beings,...  
>|> This definition is so broad that two things correctly categorized as 
>|> "human life" may very well have almost nothing in common.

>	A member of the human species, medically speaking, is created at
>conception and continues until death.  ALL human beings have at least that 
>much in common: they are all of the same species, not of different species.
>	Of course, the medical fact that unborn children are human beings 
>does not establish that they have human rights, but it is my contention that 
>they should be recognized as having such rights.
>
>	First, I maintain that there are some characteristics which certainly
>prove personhood, like apparent awareness, ability to learn, communication.  
>Any of these, and probably a great many other characteristics, would prove
>personhood.  But I also argue that the absence of any or all of these
>characteristics does not therefore necessarily DISPROVE personhood.  

That may not be true.  "Person" has no official definition, it means 
different things to different people.  To me it means "anything that
is in essence the same as a normal, born human" (a subset of human life).  
Now "in essence" is still somewhat vague (I'm open to persuasion), but 
for me the ability to think (and hence a brain) is a definite requirement, 
so an embryo, for example, is unambiguously NOT a "person". 

The rationale for my definition of "person" is that, because by definition
all "persons" are in essence the same, common, intuitive statements like "all 
persons should be treated alike" or "all persons should have equal rights" 
remain true.  On the other hand, given overly broad definitions of "person",
these simple statements become confused as we muse over the widely varying
possibilities of what type of "person" we are referring to.

------------------
>  So there are some persons who cannot be objectively identified as persons.

According to *my* definition of "person", this is true.  
I would say all "human life" fall into three categories:
1) those that are definitely "persons"      (eg. normal, born persons)
2) those that are definitely NOT "persons"  (eg. zygotes)
3) those for whom "personhood" is ambiguous (eg. a 24 week old fetus,  or 
                                             an indefinitely comatose adult)

------------------
>  But, once persons have been identified in a given species, we know that
> many members of that species may be persons even though no outward sign can 
> prove the proposition.  [...]  Therefore, I conclude, we ought to recognize 
> the personhood of the unborn.

I disagree.  Because there is ambiguity about the "personhood" of *some*
human beings, does not imply there is ambiguity about *all* human beings.
Indeed, if a physical brain is a requirement of "personhood" (a reasonable
requirement), then a zygote is unambiguously NOT a "person".

------------------
> I admit that I do not know exactly what is necessary and sufficient for
>personhood, and I argue that you don't know either.  If you set personhood 
>at a certain level of awareness, I ask why you should be able to set the 
>level and not me.  What makes you special?  But if nobody can set the level,
>then all human beings must be included in the set of persons, as I suggest.

I don't consider myself special enough to tell you exactly who is, 
and who isn't, a "person", in fact, I'm not always sure myself.  
However I've noticed that *you*, on the other hand, are bold enough 
to suggest that "all human beings must be included in the set of persons".

------------------
IMH, when unwanted pregnancies do occur, and the woman decides that abortion
is the best course of action given her particular circumstance, such 
abortions normally can be done before the fetus nears possible "personhood" 
(recall my definition requires a brain capable of thinking).  Given 
reasonable access to abortion, it seems this would naturally be the case, 
assuming that women would not deliberately prolong an unwanted pregnancy.

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush