From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: What defines a human life anyhow?
Organization: Not if I see it coming.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:05:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.215002.14406@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.233413.18715@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug9.162222.15051@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug8.235313.23360@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Aug8.200300.20099@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> 
>>>>knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>>>
>>>And that is a criteria for human rights?  Fetuses aren't humans now, but could
>>>be and brain dead people aren't people now and can't be untill we make some
>>>sort of medical technilogical breakthrough?
>>
>>Like, what kind of medical technilogical break through would it require to
>>bring function back to a DEAD brain?  I think you are attempting a bad
>>analogy here.
>
>I was not attempting any analogy and neither you, nor I, can forcast
>technology.

Yes, we CAN. Medical technology will NEVER be able to recreate lost
information.  If we were talking about repairable damage, that lies in the
range of the possible.

But retrieving the information LOST when a brain is damaged is not a
physically possible feat.  Brain damage is not just the inability of
the system to GET to the information, it is also LOSS of that information.

Repairing the system may allow you to execute a new program (read, put
a new person in that brain), but it would not allow you to retrieve
the old person.

>>>You'll have to elaborate on how an early term fetus is 'funtioning' as a human
>>>being.  Bring in a few examples. Perhaps how they function better than a
>>>brain dead individual.
>>
>>MUCH better.  Or maybe you have never seen an ultrasound. . .  Before it
>>gets to crowded in there, they swim and dance, sometimes with rather wild
>>abandon.  Reminds me somewhat of a Dead Head concert I attended once. . .
>
>I've seen dozens of ultrasounds. There is nothing there to suggest to me
>that the fetus funtions better than a brain dead person.

Brain dead people do NOT MOVE in response to stimuli.  If you really
have seen dozens of ultra sounds, then you know that fetuses DO.

>I do see that
>the fetus and the brain-dead body are both on life support

So are you.  The difference is in type of life support.  And you should
be careful of this line of reasoning.  If a brain dead individual, in
some states, is still considered to have the right to life, then
a fetus should also have the right to life.

>and that they both are totally incapable of existing on their own.

Except that you neatly side step the issue, both here and below, that
the state is NOT permanent for a fetus, but it is for a brain-dead
individual.  For a fetus, it is just a developmental stage.

>Also, I see that the fetus, before about 22 weeks, is incapable of
>thought, just like the brain dead body.

You can SEE THIS?  From an ultrasound?  You really need to watch your
claims a little closer.  And your claim that a fetus before 22 weeks is
incapable of thought needs supporting facts (as well as definition as
to what you consider to be thought).

>>Because it ISN'T two separate cells anymore.  It is one.  You have to draw
>>the line somewhere.
>
>Sure, you too. Just don't draw the line *for* me.

Why not?  You are attempting to draw the line for ME!

>Depends on what is being discussed.  Many have claimed things like fetuses 
>as young as several weeks can think. They cannot, this is obviously an
>error and if people are basing their beliefs on erroneous 'facts', they
>should be pointed out (IMO).

Fine.  But facts are not what this is about.  What this is about is your
interpretation of those facts.  And that interpretation, in every case
I've seen so far (mine included) is based on the interpreters belief
system.

>Mr. Chaney spouted off quite a lot of complete
>nonsense about biology and fetal development several weeks ago.

Yup.  He needs to read up on the subject more.

>He bases his beliefs on these and they are incorrect.

Actually, I would be willing to bet that he believes the misinformation
he gave because it supported his beliefs, not the other way around.  If
you point out the errors, and teach him the facts, he may retreat, but
will not change his belief system.

>David Knapp                                 University of Colorado, Boulder

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity