From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 02:55:36 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.010353.4466@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes ...
>> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>Which leads to the inevitable question: what is it about birth that
>>>turns a fetus into a person?
>>>
>>Which can be argued into eternity, since 'personhood' is a state which
>>has a different meaning to each of us.
>>However, you might consider the obvious, in that after birth, there is
>>no longer a need to derive sustenance directly from the bodily
>>resources of the mother. You migth also consider the major
>>physiological changes that take place at birth.
>
>It can be argued that since a 8 1/2 month fetus doesn't _need_ to
>derive sustenance directly from the mother, that it is therefore a
>person.
>
Get your terms straight Ray. As long as it *is* a fetus, it *must*
derive sustenance directly from the woman.

>>>The legal argument isn't a useful one, as it can be argued that laws
>>>protect existing rights, and don't create rights.
>>>
>>I'm notarguing law, am I?
>>
>>>The biological arguments are not relevent to the personhood issue (or
>>>at least, haven't been shown to be).  The the fetus is inside another
>>>person doesn't necessarily mean it isn't a person.  As far as I've
>>>been able to tell, that alone it not enough to determine or prevent
>>>personhood.
>>>
>>Rather depends on your definition of 'person' doesn't it Ray? Mine
>>happens to include a certain minimum level of self-support not
>>possible within the womb.
>
>Are you talking about the presence of support from the mother or the
>need for support from the mother?  If the former, then one might argue
>that a baby being breastfed is, for the moment, not a person because
>it is getting support from the mother.  If the latter, then a 8-month
>fetus is (probably) just as much a person as a newborn, since both are
>_capable_ of surviving without the mother assistance.
>
Ray, it should be obvious that the feeding baby could be fed by
*anybody* since there are plenty of alternatives to breastfeeding. Or
is your definition of 'person' so simplistic that it only takes one
factor into account? Mine certainly isn't. As for your last statement,
I'll say it again. as long as it is a fetus, it must take all
sustenance directly from the woman.

>And in case Keegan The Net Cop is actually paying attention.  No, I'm
>not trying to argue against abortion.  Personally I consider the
>personhood argument irrelevent.  But if you're going to use the
>argument, at least make sure it's a solid one.
>
Personhood is not irrelevent. It is *part* of the issue, but certainly
not the entire issue. Try to keep that in mind Ray. we're only talking
about *one* part of the issue, not the entire thing, in this thread.

>>It's relevent to another thread, and being carried over to here. If
>>you have a problem with that, I suggest you hit N instead of reading
>>it. Nor is it in any way ad hominem, since the facts are correct. It
>>is merely an attempt to get Kibble to correct his own word choice in
>>the same manner he insists others correct theirs.
>
>Are you going to start correcting people's usage of words such as
>"hopefully" and "irregardless" as well?
>
Nope, Kebbin does that just fine. I'm merely encourageing Kibble to
live up to his own standards of 'tight language'.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion