From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: What needs to happen to discuss these issues productively.
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1992 07:30:03 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <72976@netnews.upenn.edu>  kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu writes:
> Larry
> >Kevin
> >> Larry
>
> >1.  When you say "This says that there is a proper term called the
> >    'human being in the genetic sense'", this is an inference on your part.
>
> When I say those words, that is because there is a specific reference to
> those exact terms in her work.

Not together; at least, not in the part you quoted.

> >2.  What are Ms. Warren's credentials, that we should accept her
> >    definition as gospel (even if your inference were valid)?  Just
> >    because her letter was printed in a textbook does not make her
> >    a language expert.
>
> No, her words are not the Gospel.  But many philosophers have borrowed
> her terminology to share with their own.  I think that because her work
> was nationally recognized, it should be somewhat more important than a
> simple dictionary definition.

No, I said in *all* the references I had available.

> Does the dictionary say a person must be conscious, rational, etc...all
> those accepted limitations?

Wait a minute - accepted by who?  I certainly don't consider a person to
be no longer a person when they're asleep or knocked out.

> >> >Kevin
> >> >> But it isn't these which allow the transmission for thought.
> >> >> It is myelination that allows for this wonder...something a fetus
> >> >> has around 24 weeks.
>
> >> >Myelination is a necessary but not sufficient condition.
>
> >> Correct...but it is nonetheless necessary.
>
> >Umm, that's what I said.  "Necessary but not sufficient" means that
> >it *is* necessary, but other things are necessary as well.  In context,
> >this means that before myelination (which begins around 24 weeks), the
> >fetus is not capable of thought.  After myelination begins, transmission
> >can occur, but there still are not enough axons, etc. to sustain thought -
> >not until 4 weeks *later*.
>
> Excuse me, Larry, there is plenty of transmission going on in the brain and
> in the heart well before myelination begins.

I said "in context".  The context was transmission of thought.  There's
transmission of signals before myelination, but it's too inefficient.

> >And now we see a wonderful piece of intellectual dishonesty which few
> >would even attempt.  Kevin takes an article which presents facts that
> >Kevin doesn't like, so he selectively cuts it and claims that it says
> >the opposite of what it really does.  Let's take a look, shall we?
>
> I cut it down to what was sufficient for my assertions that the brain is
> enough...

Exactly - but it says that the brain is *not* enough.  You cut out the part
that disagreed with you, and then claimed it proved your point.  Like I
said - intellectual dishonesty.

> >But note that the brain doesn't magically appear at 4 weeks, so when
> >you say "it exists" you're wrong.  It *starts* to develop.  The
> >article also says:
> >     They contend
> >     that the cerebral cortex, the portion of the brain
> >     needed for thought, feelings and conscious awareness,
> >     is the last part of the brain to fully develop."
> >            ====
>
> Wait a minute, Larry.  Are you implying that something doesn't exist and
> then it all of a sudden exists?

Wait a minute, Kevin, can't you read?  I said it *develops*.  Before 4
weeks, there are no brain neurons.  After 4 weeks, there's something that
you can point to and say "this is what will be the brain", but it's
certainly not developed enough to be of much use.

> >> >     "Can there be a person without a brain?" Jaworski inquires.
>
> >> >     "No, no way," replies Bennett.  "You can't be a person
> >> >     without a brain, you can't be a dog without a brain,
> >> >     you can't be a cat without a brain or a chicken without
> >> >     a brain."
>
> >> Bennett has just admitted that at 4 weeks, when a brain is present
> >> in the fetus, that it is a person.  At five weeks when the brain
> >> is more developed, it is a person.  At 8 weeks, when the brain shows
> >> electrical activity, the fetus is a person.
>
> >One would think that after being corrected many times for making the
> >same logical error, you would learn something.  Dr. Bennet said that
> >no brain implies no person; this does *not* say that brain implies
> >person.  (In fact, he said you can't be a dog or a cat or a chicken
> >without a brain, so by Welch's reasoning, something with a brain is
> >a person *and* a dog *and* a cat *and* a chicken.  :-)
>
> So, it is incorrect to state that since we all have brains, we are all
> persons.

Yes, it *is* incorrect.  A dog has a brain, but it's not a person.
You're making the same logical error *again*.

> You're not a person, Larry.  Neither am I.

I'm a person.  I can't speak for you.  Hell - even *you* can't speak for you.

> You said it
> yourself:  "this does *not* say that brain implies person."

Correct.  Possessing a brain does not imply personhood.  There are other
requirements.  Like being human.  Being alive.  Being capable of thought.

> >A second error is that Welch claims that a brain is present at 4 weeks;
> >that's simply when it starts to develop.  And the intellectual dishonesty
> >appears when we realize with horror that Mr Welch discarded the rest of
> >the article, which stated plainly that it's not 4 weeks or 5 weeks or
> >8 weeks, but 28 weeks - 7 months - until the brain is sufficiently
> >developed that we could *consider* "personhood".
>
> The is not the brain as it is known to you or me as a fully developed brain.
> Nonetheless, it has a brain.  I didn't say THE brain, the brain that you
> and I have.
>
> >     In fact, asserts neurologist and neuroscientist Dr.
> >     Dominick Purpura, former dean of the Stanford University
> >     School of Medicine, and current dean at Albert Einstein
> >     School of Medicine, before the 28th week of development
> >     the cortex lacks sufficient axons, dendrites and synapses
> >     to sustain the processes of thought, feeling and aware-
> >     ness the documentary deems necessary for "personhood".
> >
> >     "We're putting the boundary condition, the limit, the
> >     minimal time for personhood to begin," Purpura says.  "It's
> >     not three months, it's not two months, it's seven months.
>
> So be it.
> Does this also reflect Constitutional personhood?  In no way shape
> or form....

I never claimed it did.  You were the one blathering nonsense about
a 4-week fetus being a person; I felt obliged to correct you and point
out what scientists say.  Now that you admit you were wrong, we can
move on to other topics.  (I'm assuming that your "So be it" was an
acceptance of 28 weeks as the *minimum* age that can be considered
for personhood, and your attempt to change the subject is the way
you admit you're wrong?)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)