From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about Fundies
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 17 Nov 92 03:57:19 GMT

In <1992Nov11.102809.21046@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:

>In article <nyikos.721352819@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>In <ednclark.720769528@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>>
>>>mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>>>Because ending something is not the same as not having started it in the
>>>>first place.  For example, ending a nuclear war (via massive retaliation) is
>>>>not at all the same as not starting one in the first place, morally speaking.
>>
>>>>So the answer to "If it's OK to cause a potential person never to exist, why
>>>>isn't it OK to cause an existing person to cease existing?" is simple;
>>>>"causing a person to never have existed" is not the same as "causing a person
>>>>to cease existing".  Hence my original comment.
>>
>>A sentient fetus is a "person" in the phenomenological sense of the
>>word.
>>
>This statement is not correct.

It is correct, you simply refuse to seriously entertain the possibility
that there is such a thing as a sentient fetus.  

>It has yet to be demonstrated that a fetus is capable of
>sentience.

So?  It has yet to be demonstrated that your whole life has not been
a dream and that we are not all just figments of your imagination.

>  Even if a fetus could be shown to posess sentience,
>in a phenomenological sense, the 'experience' of the fetus would 
>hardly be comparable to the experience of born persons.  A fetus 
>does not experience 'being-in-the-world'.  There is also a clear
>distinction between the phenomenological self-awareness of one's 
>own personhood and the recognition of the personhood of 'others'.

None of this makes an iota of difference to me.  And by the way,
Gilbert Ryle, author of _The Concept of Mind_, would have claimed
that your last sentence is gibberish.  Not that I agree with him, I just
want to point out that you are making a doctrinaire statement ["This
statement is not correct" was another one.] about something whose
meaning is less than clear to everyone.

>A fetus does not attain 'otherness' until birth, except for those 
>who regard the personhood of the woman as completely transparent.

Pseudo-philosophy.  A 24-week premature child attains otherness
before a 34-week fetus?  Tell me another one.

>It is possible that the woman carrying the fetus may regard it
>as 'other', though in doing so she would probably experience a
>profound sense of alienation from her own body.

Staple pro-abortion propaganda, dressed up in philosophical language.

>  The transition
>from connectedness to 'otherness' is, in fact, not complete
>psychologically at parturition for some women.  Hence, the 
>lifelong distress that affects many women who give up their babies 
>for adoption.

Can't shake the feeling that her child, now grown up, is still a 
part of her body?  No matter how you dress it up, it's the same
stinking pro-abortion propaganda.

>It has been argued that it is possible for others to interact
>experientially with a fetus while it is still in utero.  I
>would point out, however, that such exchanges  _always_
>involve some interaction with the physical person of the 
>pregnant woman.

So what?  The same is true of a breastfeeding baby.

>  From the perspective of all outsiders, the
>'otherness' of a fetus is completely derivational from the
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>experience of treating in some way with the body of the
>pregnant woman.

This statement is not correct.  If I step into a darkened room
while a sonogram of a baby is being shown, what sense is there
in what you say?

>  It is also extremely difficult to assess 
>the quality of such 'experiences' for the fetus, since the
>memory of 'post-fetuses' so rarely includes such things.

Ditto the first few months of birth.  Are you ready to support
legislation allowing infanticide for this reason?

Peter Ny.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism