From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Terrible. Close. Mind.
Date: 23 Nov 1992 18:39:02 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de
Keywords: Terrible, close, mind

# Brian Kendig
#>  Me.
#>#  Brian again

#If "commonly considered" doesn't fly for you, then how can we say
#anything at all about souls?  There's no way to empirically verify
#that a fetus does or does not have a soul -- in fact, I don't believe
#there is any such thing as a 'soul'.  I was merely referring to what I
#think the most common idea of a "soul" is, in the Christian sense.
#I'd have to say that this Catholic who told you that animals have
#messiahs definitely holds a minority opinion (he sounds loony, but hey).

Agreed on all counts, except belief in a soul.  What I understand by soul is
all aspects of personhood which cannot be accounted for by conventional
scientific understanding.  Understood as such, a soul undeniably exists.
Look inside your own heart and head, and I'm sure you'll find lots going on
there for which (as far as _I_ am concerned) no external evidence exists.
Does that mean those of your thoughts and feelings which I am not privy to
don't exist?  That would be asinine.

#Sure, you don't go out of your way to harm cats, but what relevance
#does that have?  Do you go out of your way to hurt rocks?

Look at it this way:  You can clearly see a person walking alone on a beach.
Suddenly a fog descends, and from your distance it's impossible to see what's
happening down on the beach.  When the fog clears you can clearly see _two_
people on the beach.  How many people were in the fog?

You see how rocks have nothing to do with this scenario?  Rocks have yet to
turn into more people than were there before.  Only people do that.  It's
obvious (to me) that the fog appears at conception.  It's obvious (to you)
that the fog appears at some moment related to sentience.  For other people
the fog doesn't appear until birth, or some weeks afterwards.  None of these
views are more reasonable, nor more scientific than the other.  These are
religious beliefs, every one of them.

Furthermore, a pragmatic point:  It seems foolish to me to draw the battle
lines re abortion rights along the issue of foetal personhood, since it's
irrelevant - a woman should be entitled to terminate her pregnancy anyway.  
Also, I'm speaking from experience when I say that it makes pro-lifers
very angry (and gives them a moral wave to surf on) when people state
that z/e/f's have no value whatsoever.

#>#the ability to conceive of indirect solutions to
#>#problems, the ability to use language, and so forth.
#>
#>These are measures of intelligence, not humanity.  There are lots of people
#>who can't do either of the things you mention to any useful degree, and some
#>of them are my colleagues :-)
#
#I disagree.  I've never heard of anyone whom I would call a 'person'
#who wasn't capable of either of these two things.

A person on a life support system might not be expected to do these things.
Don't you think it's a little unreasonable to expect a foetus to jump through
intellectual hoops, when it lacks the experience and/or hardware needed to
communicate with you, and one would expect it to be preoccupied with more
urgent matters such as its immediate growth and survival?

#>#Now compare anything against the two of you.  A minority person would
#>#possess many, if not all, of the distinctions that distinguish you
#>#from the cat.  
#>
#>Only because YOU say so.  Only because you want it to turn out that way, 
#>perhaps.
#
#*blink*
#
#Can you provide some believable objective criteria that would indicate
#that a black man is more similar to a cat than to a white man?

No, but I'm certain that if I were so inclined I could provide some
believable _subjective_ criteria.  It rather depends on what one values, and
on the audience.  Whoever shot Martin Luther King had a peculiar idea of a
black man's value, for example.  That person would probably have listened
eagerly to cat vs black man comparisons.

[...]

#>I believe there's a certain amount of reverse engineering going on here.  We
#>can do this for just about any helpless minority, and have done, in living
#>memory.
#
#I'm honestly not at all sure where you're coming from.  Why aren't you
#also defending animals from being butchered for food?  They're
#certainly helpless, and you've admitted they might have souls, and we
#can certainly live with fewer steaks in our lives.

I make the same equation between vegitarianism and belief in z/e/f personhood
as you do.  I believe that, even if you feel that such belief is irrational
(and actually, in the case of z/e/f personhood, any absolutist view is
irrational), it might be provisionally accepted for what it is worth.  

In short, the only point I am trying to make for you is this:  You haven't
any evidence for believing a z/e/f is not a person, not even according to
your own criteria.  That, in my book, makes your belief a religious one.
Pointing that out is my only goal in this small part of the discussion, and
that, in this context, is where I'm coming from.

I hope that this clarifies what I'm saying for you (and for others) somewhat.  
I do understand your confusion, believe me!

#_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             
-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion