From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 19:50:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.182436.1040@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>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.
>
Correct, in that the definition opf personhood is based on personal
philosophy. That's what I get for trying to converse using his own
terms. However, to me, the most disturbing posts are those which make
wild outlandish claims without being able and/or willing to provide
any support. I tend to think that a "person" is rather like
pornography, in that it defies solid definition. Who was it that said
(wrt porn) "I don't know what it is, but I know it when I see it." I
think something very similar holds true with any debate of
"personhood".

>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?
>
By this definition, would you not have to include neural tumors as
people? I think we're in basic agreement here, it proves nothing at
all.

>>>>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.
>
Another good point, and one which I will concede. Consider it so
re-worded, especially since sentience plays a large role in myu own
definition of "personhood". I also don't expect perfect detection,
I'll settle for a resonable chance that sentience be present. 
One caveat however. Even if it is shown that a late term fetus has
some beginings of sentience, I still do not support the idea of
forcing a woman to carry it to term. I'm all  in favor of efforts to
provide support outside her womb (and I'll continue to say this: I've
enver seen a post-viability termination in which there were no efforts
made to save the neonate). I just don't see it as a basis for
legislation.

>>>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?
>
We still have to consider the woman who is carrying the fetus inside
her body, and whether she is doing this willingly or unwillingly. See
above wrt post-termination options for late term abortions.

>> "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_?
>
How about a flat EEG tracing? How about a massive brain stem infarct?
How about a trauma victim in which the brain is basically pudding?
(Crudely put, I admit, but you get the point.)

>> "Is a sleeper sentient?"
>> Certainly. Just wake them up if you doubt it...
>
>Heh.  Then they're not a sleeper.
>
You have never darried on a conversation with a sleeping person? I
know I've talked to many people during the night, and never been
truely awake. And yes, the conversations were rational. :)
Last week, I had occasion to discuss a case with a hematologist at
2AM. He was quite coherant, quite sensible, and quite asleep. He
remembered absolutely nothing about the 30 minute discussion the next
day.

>> "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
Viability is easy to demonstrate? That's news to me...
Didn't we just go through this "absolute viability date" vs "guidlines
for making an informed guess" thign a while back? Like yesterday? ;)

>statment "all the evidence ... indicate that a fetus ... are (sic)
Ok, so I used a plural instead of a singular. So shoot me. :)

>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?
>
I think it's been pretty well estabilished that "personhood" is only
part of the problem needing to be defined/clarified/settled. Nor is
there any realistic chance that we will ever agree on exactly what
"personhood" is. Given that it is practically impossible that we will
ever reach agreement (not simply you and I, but the millions involved)
how can we possibly have a single solution? I don't think we can,
which is why I prefer to leave reproductive choices in the hands of
the individuals doing the reproduction.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion