Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about Fundies
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:24:20 CST
 <1992Nov2.190148.2685@brandonu.ca> <1d886pINNc1h@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1d886pINNc1h@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> In article <1992Nov2.190148.2685@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>>Hmmmm...  Always been pretty obvious to me that a fetus is not a person,
>>but let me try to explain it.  Let's start off by thinking about reasons
>>why anyone would consider a fetus a person in the first place.
>>
>>1)  A fetus has a unique individual human genetic code.
>>2)  The fetus is likely sentient.
>>3)  The fetus has a limited brain structure, therefore may be capable of
>>    thought (?)
>>4)  The fetus has a soul.
>>
>>As for statement 1, it is completely unreasonable to set a definition
>>of personhood based solely on DNA.  When we speak of a "person",
>>we are speaking about something far greater than a unique strand of
>>DNA.  Genetics simply cannot capture the full meaning of the term
>>person.
> 
> It's not unreasonable at all.  It has a basis in solid and readily verifiable
> facts, and is no more irrational a criterion than any other which
> has been suggested in this forum, e.g. birth.

Sure, you take some DNA, and you look at it, and you can say "This is
(or is not) human DNA," but just because this DNA happens to be sitting
in a developing body does not mean you have a person.  Suppose you met
a girl and had a discussion with her about the price of eggs.  Later,
you say to your friend "today I met this person, and we discussed
the price of eggs."  When you use the term "person", you are implying
that you met much more than just a set of human DNA.  No matter what
your definition of personhood may be, there is much more to a person
than just human DNA.  Make any more sense?

>>Statement 2, about sentience seems quite irrelevant as there are many more
>>sentient non persons than there are sentient persons, unless you hold
>>the belief that "animals are people too" which is quite debateable
>>(although I'd be more willing to call an ault pig a person than I would
>>be a fetus to tell you the truth (pigs are damn bright)).
> 
> You can't refute a definition of personhood by counting "persons" and
> "non-persons".  What definition of person are you using to count those
> people, and why is it correct?

It doesn't matter what definition I use for personhood, that isn't the issue
(I've never bothered to define personhood).  All I was saying was that
sentience alone cannot be used as a determinant for personhood, otherwise
all sentient beings would have to be called persons.  Sorry for the 
ambiguity.
 
>>As for statement 3, well I think it is necesary to have some sort of brain
>>power to develop fully to personhood, but (again), there are many 
>>non-person beings with greater brainpower than any fetus.  There must be
>>something more to personhood than limited brainpower, possible sentience, 
>>and human genetics.
> 
> What has brain power to do with personhood please?  

I'm not really sure, but it appears that you have helped to prove my point
that saying a fetus has limited brain power should not be an indicator
that it is a person.
[...]
> I maintain that foetal personhood is irrelevant to
> abortion rights - and that we should be able to call all human beings people
> without treating anyone else (in the case of abortion, women & their doctors)
> inhumanely or immorally.

My mind's a blank, but I like that statement...
 
Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.abortion