From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: What defines a human life anyhow?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:50:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.233413.18715@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>In article <1992Aug9.162222.15051@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug8.235313.23360@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug8.200300.20099@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> 
>>>knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>>
>>>> To disallow early term abortions but to allow euthanasia of brain dead 
>>>> folks doesn't make sense
>>>
>>>Nonsense.  Brain-dead individuals will never become functioning human
>>>beings again.
>>
>>And that is a criteria for human rights?  Fetuses aren't humans now, but could
>>be and brain dead people aren't people now and can't be untill we make some
>>sort of medical technilogical breakthrough?
>
>Like, what kind of medical technilogical break through would it require to
>bring function back to a DEAD brain?  I think you are attempting a bad
>analogy here.

I was not attempting any analogy and neither you, nor I, can forcast technology.

>>Explain why that is a valid criterion.
>
>Why is the loss of POTENTIAL life the basis for convicting and punishing
>a murderer?

You will need to elaborate a little.

>>> A developing child is a functioning human being. 
>>
>>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.  I do see that
the fetus and the brain-dead body are both on life support and that they
both are totally incapable of existing on their own. Also, I see that the
fetus, before about 22 weeks, is incapable of thought, just like the brain
dead body.  Body movement doesn't imply the existence of the person. It
only indicates ANS activity.


>>>While
>>>the child may not possess consciousness, it will eventually come to
>>>gain consciousness, unlike a permanently brain-dead individual. 
>>
>>And why does that matter? Any pair of sperm and egg have the same feature 
>>you've described in potentiality. We do not protect them or enact laws which
>>allow them to maturate. Why a fetus that is just a little bit further along
>>then, but still has all the funtionality of two cells?
>
>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.

If you think abortion is bad, don't have one.  But don't try to force me to 
follow your beliefs.  


>Unfortunately, no one in this discussion ever seems
>to be able to realize that there stance is usually based on a belief system,
>and is therefore inarguable.

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). Mr. Chaney spouted off quite a lot of complete
nonsense about biology and fetal development several weeks ago. He 
bases his beliefs on these and they are incorrect. He wants to have the
rest of the nation ascribe to his beliefs eventhough they are based on,
essentially, bullshit.


-- 
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