From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jack Kerouac)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Time, existence, personhood...
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:41:49 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Ref:  John Bates
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pennsylvania
Keywords: 

John

>>Kevin
>>>John



>>>	An infant is self-aware. It just hasn't learned what is and what
>>>is not self.

>>Part of the qualifications for being self-aware, John, are that one must
>>have the presence of self-concepts of the individual or racial difference.
>>If you mean to say that an infant is "self-aware" in that it is conscious,
>>then that too is incorrect.  As a fulfillment fo being conscious, one
>>must be conscious of objects and events external and/or internal to the
>>being), and in particular the capcity to feel pain.  Now, it feels pain,
>>yes.  But an infant can neither distinguish nor make connections between
>>external or internal events.  It does not think that it is hungry because it
>>knows it's stomach is empty.  It cries because of the pain it creates.
>>It cannot distinguish objects as well.

>	An infant can not know that its stomach is empty, because it does not
>know what a stomach is. It can not tell what is internal/external, because
>it does not know the distinction between the two. These are not necessarily
>because of a hardware defect, but because it has not learned these things.

And learning is a process called the attainment of personhood.  It is not
aware of these actions, hence it is not a person.

>	This is my basis for claiming that "minimal functionality is there".
>Even if the infant displays no self-awareness, according to your standards,
>the capability is there. All that is lacking is the learning, which is a
>software problem.

There may be capbility there, but one exists in a state or it doesn't.  All
that lacks in a dead human being is living material.  All the organs and
everything sufficient to maintain life is there, there's just no life...so
I don't think capability is sufficient to warrant personhood.  

>>>>>All right, let's try this one. (F v P v PP)=>R, R=>(F v P v PP)

>>>>agggghhh!

>>>>yes...that will work.

>>>	This seems to be more of a patch than anything else. You will admit
>>>that a z/e/f is not a person, and does not have the capacity to be a person,
>>>but still grant it rights based on its future status?

>>Yes.

>	What is your basis for this belief? Please provide details.

My basis for these assertions is that I believe them to be Constitutional
persons.  I believe them to be alive human beings (genetic) and that fact
alone affords them rights.  This is what I believe.  If I existed on personhood
being the basis for rights, I would be pro-abortion/ pro-choice.

>>>I don't know about
>>>you, but I exist in only one moment of time. The rest is memory or 
>>>anticipation. And a fetus has no memory, and no anticipation.

>>Yet you exist, whether you are conscious or not.  Being alive helps of course.

>	I said nothing about consciousness. I am unable to foretell the
>future, though I may make predictions. I am unable to relive the past, though
>I can remember it. I *exist* only right now, right here.

Okay, but it's existence, what I am saying, affords it rights, regardless
of whether it is conscious in that moment of time.

>>True, she had parts missing, but she is human.  I think she is a human because
>>of her DNA and that most (?) of her was there.

>>I did imply that "A human" had to be a whole being, but again, I was being
>>lose with definitions, not taking into consideration events like
>>this.  However, I think a majority accounts.  That sounds so trivial, but
>>I don't know...

>	Well, in a different thread you made a case for the humanity of a
>man whose entire body you removed. If you believe that, then you must either
>accept that there are certain parts of the body which are crucial to *self*,
>or that every part of the body is a human being. 

Okay, there are crucial parts to the self, the head and brain being the
"one" thing...the one thing that is most crucial.

>>kcw
>
>John


--
                          -*-  Kevin C. Welch -*-
                    -*- kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu -*-
     And all you have to do is catch me, when I'm back on the real scene.
And all the things that I don't do just make me laugh 'cause they irritate you.