From: jocallag@darwin.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re: Moral Activity (was Re: Asylum)
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:18:51 GMT

In article <921218103035.2020ca8e@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM> URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM writes:
>john ocallaghan <jocallag@DARWIN.HELIOS.ND.EDU> writes:
>
>The only point I was trying to make was that simply because an object
>is genetically different, does not mean that it is a "separate" person,
>let alone, a "legal" person.

A point which of course I was not making.

>
>>What would you say constitutes a living individual, if not that its
>>development and action is in some sense self directed?
>
>Ok, a sperm cell is a living individual, but that by itself does not
>make it a "legal" person.

Again, a point I was not making.  You are the one who claims to be able
to distinguish clearly between what counts as an individual and what does
not in such a way that a woman having a child does count as an individual
while the child she is having does not.
I thought we had settled what makes something a "legal" person.  You were
denying that a child in the womb is an individual, and I thought suggesting that
since it is not an individual it could not be considered a "legal" person.

>
>>What criterion can you give for saying that the mother is an individual?
>>Maybe I just don't know what you mean by an individual.
>
>Yes, somehow we have gone from your original question to a biology free-
>for-all:-)
>
>>As a matter of fact, it is still part of the mother's biological system.
>                         ^^
>Tell this to Steve:-)

It was a poor choice of words, but as you love so much to read according
to the "spirit" and not the letter, I hope you will do so here. :-)

>
>>  But so long as she is regularly lactating, she
>>also remains naturally infertile; and when she no longer lactates regularly
>>she will begin to ovulate.
>
>I've also heard that this is a "myth", or at least not "reliable".
>Maybe Len could shed some light on this.

Yes Len would probably be quite helpful here, come to think of it.  For
clarification of "lactates regularly" I meant she breast feeds whenever the child is hungry, provided the child does not have any nutritional abnormalities.
In other words, her lactation proceeds according to the rate and in time with
the natural cycle of breast feeding; no schedule determined by the mother, but
by the child's hunger, and no substitution of bottle feeding as a suplement.

I'd be interested to know where you heard this was a "myth," or at least
not "reliable."  Is the reliability deficient because of the natural cycle
of fertility being not "reliable" or because of the actions of the mother, i.e.
the mother breastfeeding intermittently, and not solely and completely?
If the latter, then its a little inaccurate to say the cycle is not "reliable."
But anyway, I would be interested to know where you heard that it is a "myth."

>
>>There are more ways in which neither mother nor child are independent
>>bilogical "units" in what appears to be your sense.  My wife could list them.
>>But I think you get the picture.
>
>Yes, you've "beat it into this congenital progressive" enough:-)

If what I wrote is the truth, are you saying that congenital progressives are
not naturally open to the truth, but have to have it beaten into them? :-)

>
>But back to my original answer to your original question. My claim is that
>the difference in murder, rape, and theft laws is that they protect already
>"existing" legal persons, whereas an anti-abortion law would first have to
>declare fetuses legal persons. At least I think you were originally asking
>for a difference:-) -J.J.

And I was trying to indicate that our history shows that the criterion of 
"legal" person has usually been used by the powerful against the weak, 
motivated by self-interest and not love.  I do not deny that an unborn
child is not considered a legal person in our nation.  We have a difference,
namely some things which the law treats as "legal" persons, and some things
that it does not.  I was not asking you for a statement of the fact of the
difference.  I was asking you for a reason for the difference.  It is as
if I presented you with two apples, one red and one green.  I could ask
you at least two questions:
1) are these apples different?  To this you might answer: yes, one is
green and one is red.  But this is not the question I am asking.
2) Why is this apple red, and this apple green?  This is the question I am
asking, for I already know the difference.  You could answer after the
fashion of 1).  But then you wouldn't be answering my question.  I already
know the difference, this one is red, and this one is green.  I'm asking you
for the reason for the difference.  Do you see the difference? ;-)

Peace, and Happy Advent.
John

Jophn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU