From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Definitions, personhood...Ref:  Micahel R>
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:43:26 GMT

In article <72707@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch) writes:
>Kevin
>
>>>>No, the termination has purpose.  You don't think women go around getting
>>>>abortions at random, do you?
>
>>>I think that the outcome of abortions is a useless product.  There is
>>>no purpose in creating uselessness.
>
>>What on *earth* does that mean? There is a purpose to a woman getting an 
>>abortion. This is easily proven by standing in front of an abortion clinic
>>and simply asking a woman why she is going in there. 
>
>That, David, is philosophical crap.  Absurd in sounding, but true.  We don't
>set out to create nothing.  Nothing is a non-entity, it cannot be created.
>When there is "nothing" there simply is an absence of "something".  Nothing
>is non-existent.  We do not set out to create useless things, either.  
>Although, they do come about.
>

The woman set out to end a pregnancy. I am unsure why this is so difficult 
to grasp. I am also unsure how "creating *nothing*" (whatever that means)
got into this. You create useless things when you  have a bowel movenment.
This is not difficult philosophical territory.

>A woman likes to think that the purpose of an abortion is to end pregnancy,
>where it is actually to end the life of the fetus.


It is sounding (again) like you know what the woman is thinking better than
she does. This is probably why you receive such venomous remarks from 
women.


>  You cannot end pregnacy
>unless the baby is born or the fetus dies.

Not related to purpose. If women could end pregnancy without killing the 
fetus, there would be women who did that. Why? Because their purpose is
to end a pregnancy. This is not really a topic for debate. 

>
>>Kevin: "excuse me, but why are you going in there?"
>>Woman: "Why, to get an abortion of course."
>>Kevin: "Why are you getting an abortion?"
>>Woman: "I do not want a child right now. This prenancy was a mistake, and I 
>>       would like to end it."
>
>That's what she says.

Do you think she's lying or something? 


>
>>Simple. There is purpose. The fact that the result is dead fetal tissue
>>is totally irrelevant. The purpose is to end a pregnancy, to stop a child
>>from being created.	
>
>
>That is her purpose.  That is the FloweryI'mAGoodGirl way about it.  The
>doctor doesn't end pregnancy--he kills the fetus.


What is a "Flower etc." way? 

The doctor doesn't end a pregnancy? It would appear that killing a fetus does
this. Perhaps I am behind on medical technology.



>>>>As set by whom?
>
>>>Man.
>>>Nature.
>>>(God.)
>
>>Oop, let's not get into God. We will go nowhere because that is an entirely
>>different debate.
>
>I put "God" in ()'s because some believe and some don't.  For some, God forms
>those morals/ethics/whatevers....
>
>Yes, it is a new debate...another unending one  :/


Oh, yes.

>
>
>>>>>	  Because it is "human", "a human", a "human being in the genetic sense"
>>>>>and has all the potential in the world to be a "person".
>
>>>>So do a sperm and an egg. 
>
>>>No.
>
>>Please support that.
>
>Alone, the sperm cannot become a person.  Alone, the egg cannot be a person.
>Alone, the two have 0 potential to be a person because they have 0 potential
>to be a z/e/f.

Please point to the post where I asserted a sperm alone can become a person.
If I did not do this, stating this is irrelevant.

>Together, the sperm and egg (in a dish or something/uterus) have 0 potential
>to be a person.  They have a potential to be a z/e/f since they may not
>conceive.

Huh? If a sperm and an egg have 0 potential of becoming a purpose in a uterus,
may I ask how it is that we are all here? Did science find that sperm and
egg do *not* form the zygote that becomes a human being?

Will someone besides Kevin please tell me what I am missing here?


>
>After conception, a z/e/f has a 43% potential of being a person.  The rest
>are aborted natually and unnaturally.
>
>Hence, a sperm/egg has 0 potential to be a person.
>


How is it that you were ever a zygote yourself, then? Embryo? Fetus? Person?

You are suggesting that you were *not* formed from sperm and egg?



>>>>When they actually BECOME people, then I'll
>>>>recognize them as such.  I don't deal in potentials when an ACTUAL person's
>>>>rights are being violated.
>
>>>What do you do for infants?  Comatose victims?  You when you sleep?  All
>>>three are not persons at those times...
>
>>That is absurd. I become a non person when I am asleep? You are saying in 
>>past posts on this that animation is required to be a person? 
>
>When you are asleep, David, you lose the most important qualification
>for personhood:  consciousness and self-awareness.  At that moment,
>you are technically not a person.  That is why these definitions for
>personhood are so bad:  they leave out fetuses, infants, comatose
>victims and "people" when they are asleep.

I do believe we qualified that by saying "were" conscious etc and, in our 
heads at the time of sleep etc. *are* concious. Indeed, waking any sleeping
(successfully waking a comatose) person, will show this. I don't see any
ambiguity at all. The process is occurring out of sight. With a 8 week fetus
the process is not occurring *at all* because its brain is useless goo.



-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity