From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Definitions, personhood...Ref:  Micahel R>
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Who, me???
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 03:50:32 GMT

In article <72707@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch) writes:
>Kevin
>>David
>>>Michael
>>>>Kevin
>
>>>>No, the termination has purpose.  You don't think women go around getting
>>>>abortions at random, do you?
>
>>>I think that the outcome of abortions is a useless product.  There is
>>>no purpose in creating uselessness.
>
>>What on *earth* does that mean? There is a purpose to a woman getting an 
>>abortion. This is easily proven by standing in front of an abortion clinic
>>and simply asking a woman why she is going in there. 
>
>That, David, is philosophical crap.  Absurd in sounding, but true.  We don't
>set out to create nothing.  Nothing is a non-entity, it cannot be created.
>When there is "nothing" there simply is an absence of "something".  Nothing
>is non-existent.  

Jean-Paul Sartre, if he were alive, might give you an argument on that point.
I decline to make his argument for him, but suffice it to say, there are
those metaphysicians/ontologists who grant a kind of "shadow existence" to 
nothingness. They see it as something other than a mere "absence".

>We do not set out to create useless things, either.  
>Although, they do come about.

You are assuming volition unnecessarily. The woman did not, in volitional
terms, necessarily CREATE her pregnancy. She CREATED an orgasm, which had a
use. The pregnancy is, usually, an unexpected byproduct of that process.
In a previous article, I questioned whether you were against waste disposal,
since that seems to create "useless things" in much the same way as removing
fetuses. To expand on that question, are you also against biological 
excretion? Against urination and the exhalation of waste gases? All of these 
seem to create "useless things". When you make an omelette, do you eat the 
eggshells? The list goes on and on. Your "don't create useless things" 
argument is, ironically, a useless thing, since it is totally unconvincing and 
infeasible....

>A woman likes to think that the purpose of an abortion is to end pregnancy,
>where it is actually to end the life of the fetus.  

Only the woman knows what the true "purpose" of her abortion is, Welch.
You can't tell her the "purpose", only the EFFECTS.

>>>>>	  Because it is "human", "a human", a "human being in the genetic sense"
>>>>>and has all the potential in the world to be a "person".
>
>>>>So do a sperm and an egg. 
>
>>>No.
>
>>Please support that.
>
>Alone, the sperm cannot become a person.  Alone, the egg cannot be a person.
>Alone, the two have 0 potential to be a person because they have 0 potential
>to be a z/e/f.

Alone, the newly-fertilized egg cannot become a person. It needs a uterine
lining in which to emplant, nutrients etc. for growth, etc. Without those 
things, it dies. The newly-fertilized egg's "potential" only comes at the
price of the host's reproductive freedom. It is a "stacked" potential. An
"imposed" potential. A "borrowed" potential. Not a potential which derives 
from freely-acting agents.

>>>What do you do for infants?  Comatose victims?  You when you sleep?  All
>>>three are not persons at those times...
>
>>That is absurd. I become a non person when I am asleep? You are saying in 
>>past posts on this that animation is required to be a person? 
>
>When you are asleep, David, you lose the most important qualification
>for personhood:  consciousness and self-awareness.  At that moment,
>you are technically not a person.  

Technically? What technology is this? Certainly the LAW recognizes sleeping
human beings as "persons", Welch. What other technology is relevant here?

>That is why these definitions for
>personhood are so bad:  they leave out fetuses, infants, comatose
>victims and "people" when they are asleep.

The law is fairly consistent on this point. It looks at just two factors:

	A) The likelihood that the subject will (re)gain consciousness

	B) The effect on family, friends, society-as-a-whole etc. if the 
	   subject is let to die, as opposed to let to continue living

Factor (A) immediately mandates that sleeping human beings are still 
"persons", since they generally have an EXTREMELY HIGH likelihood of regaining
consciousness. Similarly with infants.

In the case of comatose victims, the situation is fuzzier. The probabilities
looked at under factor (A) vary greatly. So, we must also look at factor (B).
Some jurisdictions consider that the effect on family, friends, etc. if life-
support is continued is POSITIVE given some probability of recovery, and
NEGATIVE below that threshold, since it denies the family, friends, etc. the
chance to "resolve" their grief, to deal with inheritance issues, etc.
Other jurisdictions take into account a whole spectrum of sub-factors under
factor (B) (is subject married? with children? of positive/negative economic
value to society etc. etc.) Yet other jurisdictions treat it as wrong to kill 
comatose subjects REGARDLESS of the probability of recovery. Results vary.

In the case of fetuses, the issue is even thornier. Generally, like an 
infant, or a sleeping person, the probability of "recovery" is very high.
However, now factor (B) becomes EXTREMELY important. Unwanted babies often
put an economic strain on society, for one thing, so it's a social issue.
But, even more important than that, allowing the fetus to continue living
puts a strain on THE WOMAN WHO IS CARRYING IT. An economic strain, a physical
strain, medical risks, etc. Most importantly of all, IMHO, her right of Bodily
Autonomy is violated. Therefore, fetuses are a case where factor (B) pretty
much OVERRIDES factor (A). Where, in other words, the probability of 
"recovery" is pretty much irrelevant, compared to the imposition of effecting
that "recovery".

In summary, then, the law is not particularly inconsistent in these areas. It 
treats all cases of "unconscious humans" by looking at essentially the same 
factors. Just because the results of the abortion analysis, in particular, 
don't currently meet with your approval does not mean you should go around
implying that the law is "inconsistent", or that personhood should not be 
linked to consciousness or self-awareness AT ALL. The -methods- are fine, 
even if you don't like the -results-.

								- Kevin