From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: The origin of individual human beings
Organization: Boulder CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:34:47 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:
>>         = 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.

>> >	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).  
>> [...]        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".

>	A physical brain is not a necessary requirement of personhood.  
> You may not be religious, but can you conceive of a spirit-like being, 
> with no brain as such, but still aware?  Who knows?  Maybe the Christians 
> are right; maybe there is a spirit of some sort attached to the zygote, 
> a being which is indisputably aware and indisputably a person.  I'm not 
> saying it's true, but then I can't disprove it either.  The fact is, 
> I just don't know.  But I do know that some human beings are certainly 
> persons and I don't feel justified in establishing my own arbitrarily-
> established dividing line.  And you shouldn't feel justified either; 
> you aren't.

This is ridiculous.  If your working definition of "person" involves the
idea that "a physical brain is not a necessary requirement of personhood"
because "a spirit-like being, with no brain as such" might constitute a
"person", then you better invent a new word that at least vaguely captures
the meaning of the word "person" as used by the rest of world.

Is the abortion debate really about possibly causing harm to spirit-beings?
Shall we call in the spirit-being experts?  (those who have expertise 
*about* spirit-beings, not necessarily those experts who *are* spirit-beings;)

Sure, philosophically you or I cannot dis-prove:
1) that spirit-like beings are attached to fertilized eggs
but neither can you or I dis-prove
2) that spirit-like beings are attached to insects, trees, rocks, you-name-it
So perhaps we should consider rocks "persons", just in case?  I think not.  

If debating "personhood" involves the notion that, philosophically, one 
cannot dis-prove that a non-physical spirit-like being might be attached 
to a fertilized egg, then I'm sorry, this thread is too far gone for me.

Further, while such musings might be philosophically interesting to 
someone else, certainly, any such reasoning is far too convoluted to 
base our national laws upon.

-Brian
Newsgroups: talk.abortion