From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: What defines a human life anyhow?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 14:42:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.200502.1125@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.215002.14406@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>I was not attempting any analogy and neither you, nor I, can forcast
>>technology.
>
>Yes, we CAN. Medical technology will NEVER be able to recreate lost
>information.  If we were talking about repairable damage, that lies in the
>range of the possible.

If you know what the future holds for medical technology, you'd be best to 
help out with medical research so you can point out where not to waste time.


>But retrieving the information LOST when a brain is damaged is not a
>physically possible feat.  Brain damage is not just the inability of
>the system to GET to the information, it is also LOSS of that information.

This gets into a separate debate. Consider this. Tell me the criteria for 
deciding if information is lost in the brain.  We all 'know' that if the b
brain doesn't receive oxygen for more than 5 minutes (at standard temperatures)
that brain damage can result. Tell me how that damamge manifests itself.
Surely the cells do not have neough time to dissintegrate.

>
>Repairing the system may allow you to execute a new program (read, put
>a new person in that brain), but it would not allow you to retrieve
>the old person.

I will continue to assert that you, nor I, are qualified to make such a 
statement. I simply disagree with you. You must admit to seeing a continuing
patern of people walking around with their feet in their mouths after saying
something 'can't happen'.


>>>>You'll have to elaborate on how an early term fetus is 'funtioning' as a human
>>>>being.  Bring in a few examples. Perhaps how they function better than a
>>>>brain dead individual.
>>>
>>>MUCH better.  Or maybe you have never seen an ultrasound. . .  Before it
>>>gets to crowded in there, they swim and dance, sometimes with rather wild
>>>abandon.  Reminds me somewhat of a Dead Head concert I attended once. . .
>>
>>I've seen dozens of ultrasounds. There is nothing there to suggest to me
>>that the fetus funtions better than a brain dead person.
>
>Brain dead people do NOT MOVE in response to stimuli. 


This is simply incorrect.  I have seen people with their brains lying on the
*ground* move.  It is not the gray matter that does the thinking that causes
movement, it is (I believe) the cerebral cortex.  The brain stem? (help
me out neurologists...) I'll go ask my biologist advisor what that is, but
I am certain that the 'brain' is not what causes the stimulus response.

>If you really
>have seen dozens of ultra sounds, then you know that fetuses DO.

Yes, they do. Even fetuses before myelination do. Why is that? It's not becuase
they're thinking about it. It's becasue ANS activity has developed long before
CNS activity.  While the brain has not even begun myelination before, say
18 weeks, the fetus can twitch and kick. Why is that?

>>I do see that
>>the fetus and the brain-dead body are both on life support
>
>So are you.  The difference is in type of life support.  And you should
>be careful of this line of reasoning.  If a brain dead individual, in
>some states, is still considered to have the right to life, then
>a fetus should also have the right to life.

In some states.  Go ahead and pass laws banning abortion in some states then.
Those who want an abortion will go to anther state.

I somehow doubt that ethics are different state to state.

I don't see why the type of life support makes a difference. Is this the same
arbitrary line that is drawn before and after conception? A bunch of folks have
gotten together to state that "conception is when life begins" just because
a zygote is one thing and a sperm and egg are two things? How arbitrary.


>>and that they both are totally incapable of existing on their own.
>
>Except that you neatly side step the issue, both here and below, that
>the state is NOT permanent for a fetus, but it is for a brain-dead
>individual.  For a fetus, it is just a developmental stage.

And why is permanence and issue? Because the fetus can "get better" and
the brain dead person can't? But cannot every pair of sperm and egg "get
better" and develop into a thinking person?  The odds are good that an
outrageously enormous number of sperm/egg combinations can "get better"
so why don't we pass laws forcing people to allow that?


>>Also, I see that the fetus, before about 22 weeks, is incapable of
>>thought, just like the brain dead body.
>
>You can SEE THIS?  From an ultrasound? 


I knew you couldn't avoid playing semantics sooner or later.

> You really need to watch your
>claims a little closer. 


You need to get off semantic issues and stick with the argument.


>And your claim that a fetus before 22 weeks is
>incapable of thought needs supporting facts (as well as definition as
>to what you consider to be thought).

Look in any fetal development text covering myelination. 20 or 22 weeks has
been quoted and referred to and referenced on this group a number of times
over the past six months.

Write me individually and I will mail you expert opinion. 

>>>Because it ISN'T two separate cells anymore.  It is one.  You have to draw
>>>the line somewhere.
>>
>>Sure, you too. Just don't draw the line *for* me.
>
>Why not?  You are attempting to draw the line for ME!

*Not at all*!

If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. I support your right to chose
to not have an abortion.  What I am working against are those (pardon me if
I have incorrectly assumed you are working against legal abortion) who will
try to force women, by law, to have babies they don't want.

I am quite consistent in supporting freedom of reproductive choice for 
*everyone*.

>>Depends on what is being discussed.  Many have claimed things like fetuses 
>>as young as several weeks can think. They cannot, this is obviously an
>>error and if people are basing their beliefs on erroneous 'facts', they
>>should be pointed out (IMO).
>
>Fine.  But facts are not what this is about.  What this is about is your
>interpretation of those facts. 

How can one misinterpret a fact like "There is no myelination before 22 
weeks?" If we want to draw the line two weeks earlier so that there are no
cases of any myelination ever beginnning, fine, but I don't see how you
can misinterpret facts.

> And that interpretation, in every case
>I've seen so far (mine included) is based on the interpreters belief
>system.


Then what good are facts?  Am I correct in my observation that you believe that
early term fetuses have operation brains before myelination because they twitch?
That is not a fact. Humans do not need brain activity to twitch, they need
ANS activity which is not contained in the brain but which is contained,
basically, in a swollen part of the spinal cord at the top of the neck.

There is a fact there. It cannot be misinterpreted.

Many state without even a blink of the eye that "life begins at conception"
which is patently absurd. It is not a fact at all since both cells which
perform the mitotic cycle were both alive, in every sense of the word,
*before* they joined. This is a fact that cannot be 'interpreted'. It is 
quite verifyable and is consistant with scientific and medical terminology.

The problem is, when people define their own unique set of terminology or
"facts" for themselves.  What do we say to someone who claims that a soul
is somehow instilled into a 'child' at conception. People believe this.
This is based on an archaic religious belief system that was created long
before anyone even knew about 'conception'. 


>>Mr. Chaney spouted off quite a lot of complete
>>nonsense about biology and fetal development several weeks ago.
>
>Yup.  He needs to read up on the subject more.
>
>>He bases his beliefs on these and they are incorrect.
>
>Actually, I would be willing to bet that he believes the misinformation
>he gave because it supported his beliefs, not the other way around. 


And this happens a *lot* here.


>If
>you point out the errors, and teach him the facts, he may retreat, but
>will not change his belief system.

I agree, he probably won't, but at least he won't be using erroneous logic
and flawed facts to support his argument. In the end, he will see that he
has no argument because of the facts being as they are.

-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Highly Opinionated, Aging  and                      knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Perpetual Student of Chemistry and Physics.
            Write me for an argument on your favorite subject.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity