From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Questions for Stephen Matheson.
Date: 18 Dec 92 20:40:13 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <34411@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU>, by smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU
(Stephen J. Mezias):

Ugh.  A thread with my name on it.  I don't think I like it.  But then,
perhaps people will be less likely to read it and ask me more questions.

> In article <1992Dec18.095745.20133@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes to Lost
> Boy: 

> Deletia 

>>with frustration at an overstated argument.  "Evidence" for "personhood"?!
>>We're talking about philosophies here, aren't we?

> Deletia

>>welcome or appropriate, but the discussion is relevant, and personhood
>>is the only way out of the trap.

> (1) If all we are talking about with personhood is philosophies, then
> how can they be a way out of the trap?

The "trap" was laid by Doug Holtsinger, for the purpose of showing
that pro-choicers must condone infanticide.  It seemed to me that his
main point was that one must codone infanticide in order to remain
consistent.  This is only true if the fetuses and infants if one's
philosophy includes "fetuses are persons" and "killing a person is
wrong".  If one establishes "fetuses aren't persons" and "killing a
person is wrong" as the philosophy, it avoids the "trap".  I apologize
for the crude usage of the word "philosophy", especially to those who
claim to be philosophers.

> (2) What is your reaction to the following `way out of the trap:' A 5
> year old child, who is definitely a person by all criteria I have ever
> seen anyone advocate on t.a, is not allowed to use its parent's body
> to support its life.  Any parent may refuse to donate a kidney, blood,
> or tissue to their own child, even if they are the only person's on
> the planet that can save the child.  Why should a /z/e/f/, which is
> clearly not a legal person, be given rights that are not given to
> children?

Yes, this is a very interesting argument, and I read your "Lost Boy
speak for yourself..." post right after I posted my response.  While
I can see that this is a way out of the trap, I wonder what the effect
on the argument would be if the 5-year-old were already using the
kidney, blood or tissue, and had been depending on it for 5 years.
Also, I wonder what the effect would be if one had to forcibly
separate the 5-year-old from the tissue, as opposed to simply turning
off a machine or refusing to continue to provide a needed commodity
or service.

Finally, I noted with some interest your claim that this argument is
prevalent among pro-choicers, and your irritation with Lost Boy for
suggesting that most pro-choicers base their position on personhood.
My not-so-limited experience is that few people on either side of the
debate have bothered to consider the issues at the heart of the matter,
which now seem to include personhood and the legal objection you and
a few others on t.a have raised.  My unscientific impression is that
when pro-choicers *have* established a foundation it has always been
based on personhood (or its absence).  Outside of t.a, I have never
seen the "parent's kidney" approach.


--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy.misc