From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 22:34:53 GMT

In article <5_#p2rf.bskendig@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian
Kendig) writes:
> 
> Okay, Eric.  You keep saying my arguments are completely invalid
> because I haven't shown anything wrong with your argument.  If you
> really want me to attack your argument, then I will; read on.
> 
> Eric writes:
> >Ray writes:
> >>Eric writes:
> >>>Brian writes:


> >Sure, there were attempts...but whenever I showed how those attempts weren't
> >quite correct, all I heard was silence...what I am supposed to think about
> >that?
> 
> There was 'silence' because we couldn't think of how to put our
> arguments into any form that you'd consider.  You keep saying, "well,
> what you claim doesn't match what I know is true, so your argument has
> no point."  And thus you dismiss everything we have to say.

Then please point out why I must consider your points.  Or how, if I do
not, I am forced to believe something irrational.
> 
> >>>> Every single argument we make for why a fetus is not a person is
> >>>> immediately turned down by you.  You say, "well, the fetus is
> >>>> obviously human, so you're wrong and your point is irrelevant."  This
> >>>> is NOT the way to conduct a debate.
> >>>
> >>>The fetus is human...go back to basic biology if you don't believe me.
> >>
> >>BUT IS IT A _PERSON_?  READ WHAT IS _WRITTEN_.
> >
> >IMHO, yes.  It was conceived and therefore a person, IMHO.  
> 
> Okay.  So you're saying that 'person' == 'human'.

Acutally, no.  Sorry for the nitpick, but... The way this equasion is set
up implies that only humans can be persons.  A more correct version would
be that 'human' == 'person'.


> Are you saying that anything which has been conceived is self-aware?

No.  I can state many cases of adults in which it cannot be shown that they
are
self-aware, but are still persons.

> If you want to stick to Webster's definition, then how is a human
> zygote or embryo distinguished from a fish or chicken zygote or
> embryo?  


> In some way other than DNA, please, because if you base the
> difference on nothing more than just genetic code, you're back to
> equating 'person' with 'human', which isn't the way many of the rest
> of us think of it.

But it is the very fact that it is human, and not a fish, etc.. that causes
it
to be a person.  If it wasn't a human, it would be much harder to show that
it
is in fact a person and I have no concept for how to do this.

The two terms aren't equivalent, but they are as close as you can get...

If they were equivalent then these two things would be true:

person == human 
  and
human == person.  This is not the case for reasons stated above.

> I believe that a fetus becomes a 'person' at myelination because
> that's the first time that the 'wiring' in its head even exists to
> allow it the possibility of being self-aware.  It might actually
> become self-aware later, in which case I would no longer call
> myelination the start of 'personhood', but there's no serious chance
> at all of it becoming self-aware any earlier.

Why is being able to demonstrate that a human is self-aware important?  
What happens if that human cannot?  Who is to decide and by what criteria?
What exactly do you mean by self-aware?

> >>>> And you can't batter our arguments into submission by coming up with
> >>>> wild hypotheses and outrageous claims.
> >>>
> >>>Which hypotheses are wild and why?
> >>>Why claims are outrageous and why?
> >>
> >>The supposition that someday _all_ embryos will implanted.  (for example)
> >
> >Do you deny that there is research, that will someday be successful in
> >allowing all conceptions to come to term?
> 
> Yes.  I deny it.  Maybe there is ongoing research to help couples who
> are having difficulty conceiving, and this would mean finding a way to
> ensure that a zygote emplants, but I refuse to believe that someday
> _no_ woman _anywhere_ will _ever_ expel a fertilized egg through
> menstruation.

Accidents occur...this is true no matter how fullproof something is or how
much I say something could be.

> >>The supposition that only you are correct in your belief that personhood
> >>begins at conception (despite that many problem to this belief that you've 
> >>ignored).
> >
> >I have yet to see some argue effectively against it...
> 
> 'Personhood' does not mean 'life', nor does it mean 'humanity'.

Right.

> I feel that I've given you a reasonably strong argument for why a
> fertilized egg cannot be called a 'person'.  All you have done is to
> assert that a fertilized egg is a person because it is human.  Could
> you please explain your logic behind equating personhood with humanity?

Sure.  Are adult humans persons?  Yes.  If you disagree, then I don't think
I currently have any way to convice you.  The question becomes when.  I say
it is at conception.

> >>>>  Jennifer said that birth can
> >>>> be marked as the start of personhood because that's when the human
> >>>> life begins to support itself and breathe air; you turn around and ask
> >>>> what happens if we learn to breathe water someday?  Get real!  
> >>>
> >>>I am being real...that liquid exists!!!  Ever see the movie The Abyss? 
> 
> That's not the point.  The point is that someone marked a logical
> beginning of personhood to be the time at which the human begins to
> breathe outside the mother, and you nitpicked.  

True, but why should that matter?  They can always change what they said so
that I couldn't use the nickpick.  

> Let me make this
> specific instance clearer: Before birth the fetus is obtaining all its
> oxygen from the mother's body; after birth it is obtaining the oxygen
> on its own.  Even if we someday breed babies with gills, it will still
> be obtaining the oxygen, and other vital nutrients, on its own.

So, what happens if the fetus could be removed from the mothers body and
be developed in a lab from which it could receive it oxygen.

> Your nitpicking demonstrates that you're giving no effort at all to
> understanding our points. 

If you defend your points with something false, I have every right to
nitpick and
force you to defend your points with something true.

> >>An early (human) embryo strongly resembles an early fish embryo, pig
> >>embryo, chicken embryo.  Most people (i.e., you) cannot tell the 
> >>difference by observation alone.  Basic biology which _I_ learned in 
> >>high school.
> >
> >Right.  But it is irrelvant how much a human embryo resembles anything.  The
> >critical point it that there are very different things. 
> 
> How is a human embryo "very different" from a chicken embryo?

It ain't a chicken.  I would call that very different.  Please refer back
to
basic biology if you want more of an explanation.

> >If we based everything upon observation (using only the naked eye), we would
> >still believe that the earth was the center of the universe.  
> 
> There's a rule of thumb that's frequently used around here called the
> "Duck Rule": "If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then
> chances are it _is_ a duck."  In this case, the human embryo is
> observationally little different from a chicken embryo, and it's
> developmentally little different from a chicken embryo, so it is
> little different from a chicken embryo.  On what grounds do you claim
> that it _is_ different?

That rule it stupid, IMHO.  To claim something is something just because it
looking or
acts like something is at the core of what all bigots believe.
 
> >>>I don't know I am right, but I do know that no one is even trying to prove
> >>>me wrong - all I see are lame arguements that violate some basic
> >>>fact.
> >>
> >>Name one "basic fact" that you've used.  Tell us what scientific research
> >>supports your assertion that personhood (not "a human life") begins at
> >>conception.
> >
> >That an early human embryo is _not_ an early fish embryo.  Simple enough. 
> 
> Huh?  From "a human is not a fish" you get "anything human who's been
> conceived is a person"?  I didn't realize scientific research had
> gotten so far!  ;)
> 
> >It is logic and the fact that all other points make no sense, IMHO.  For
> >support, see other messages.
> 
> It appears that a great deal of people think your points make no
> sense.  Therefore there's either something that every one of us is
> missing, or else there's something that you're missing.  The law of
> probability says that it's probably you who's not getting it.

But the law of probability also says that it could be you as well... ;-)

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity