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: Wed, 6 Jan 93 20:09:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.183814.1552@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>From article <1993Jan6.162256.4767@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
>by mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran):
>
>> In article <C0FAKM.1rE@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
>> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>
>>>Let me make this plain and simple.  If you start with the premise that
>>>the preborn baby is a person, then all other considerations are moot.
>
>> Let me make this plain and simple. It you start with the premise that
>> the z/e/f is not a person, then all other considerations are moot.
>
>Right.
>
Thank you. :)

>> This premise, unlike yours, has been repeatedly backed up by evidence.
>
>Wrong.  The premise is that certain abilities are requisite for
>personhood.  The evidence for the absence of some of these abilities
>is nonexistent, but even if it were forthcoming and scientifically
>viable, it wouldn't affect the arguability of the premise.  The 
>evidence, at best, enables one to arrive at estimates of the
>onset of personhood, AS DEFINED BY THE UNPROVABLE, PHILOSOPHICAL,
>PREMISE.
>
>>>For example: if you had a choice between sacrificing your leg, or
>>>sacrificing your mother, which would you choose?  I'd sacrifice my
>>>leg.  Murder is wrong.  
>>>It is my contention that the preborn baby is a person, and that it deserves
>>>all rights implied by that label.  
>
>> Yes, it certainly is your contention. Of course, you have yet to
>> provide a shred of evidence that it is anything more then so much
>> mindless blathering.
>
>Mark, why on earth does he need to provide "evidence" in support of
>the contention that a preborn baby is a person?  He's admitted that
>this contention is not *legally* supported in 1993.  Clearly, he
>is contending that personhood can be defined in such a way as to
>include at least some preborn children.  What sort of "evidence"
>do you expect?  What sort of "evidence" can you provide for your
>own contention?  The best I can grant you is that your opinion is
>that of the majority.
>
Why should he? Because he has repeatedly posted "references available
on request" and then ignored the requests for those references.
For my part, I'll cite your own embryology texts. You know that an
early z/e/f cannot possibly think, give ntha tit lacks the proper
hardware. Late term, it has developed the hardware, but has it the
software? (the experiences, the intereaction with an environment) Late
term, the issue of sentience (part of my definition of personhood)
becomes debatable. And it would be necessary to prove the existance
(not the lack of) that sentience before it could be considered a
factor in termination of the pregnancy. The reson I insist on proof of
presense, not the absense, is simple. Lack of proof in favor of
existance can be considered to resonably show nonexistance. This holds
true in many areas. Lack of proof of the existance of a god has lead
many peopel to conclude that no such being exists.

>[rest deleted cuz I have to go]
>
Bummer. You're one of the few on the pro-life sidethat seems to be
able to discuss rationally and intelligently. The others just scream
and draw flamage.

--
                  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