home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!Germany.EU.net!murignis!horus.ap.mchp.sni.de!D012S658!frank
- From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion
- Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
- Date: 16 Nov 1992 17:15:39 GMT
- Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
- Lines: 70
- Message-ID: <1e8kvrINN2gg@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>
- References: <1992Nov6.145325.24639@netcom.com> <1dlkmmINN154@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> <BxqDEM.KAJ@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de
-
- In article <BxqDEM.KAJ@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
- >frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
- >
- >>In article <1992Nov6.145325.24639@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
- >>>Try the argument from the other direction, then: does there exist
- >>>anything which you would call a "person" but which lacks a brain? If
- >>>so, then how is this thing similar to an adult human person?
- >
- >>Sure there is. A zygote or early embryo lacks a brain, and I would call it a
- >>person.
- >
- >I wouldn't. Human yes, a person, no.
-
- Who asked you? :-)
-
- >> It is similar to an adult human person in that it is human, has two
- >>human parents, and that it was conceived. It is also similar in that it
- >>appears at the same point, or better, on the evolutionary scale. Another
- >>similarity to an adult human is that given a fair chance, it will one day
- >>be free.
- >
- >But it is not sentient. An embryo has no consciousness.
-
- Proof? Prove that you are sentient while you're at it.
-
- >Also, every one of your "similarities" is trivial.
-
- Right. Humanity is trivial. Parenthood is trivial. Conception is trivial.
- Evolution is trivial. Freedom is trivial. Try any one of these things
- at home, and see why I disagree.
-
- >>>human brain. Can you think of anything which lacks any sort of brain,
- >>>organic or cybernetic or electronic or what-have-you, yet still
- >>>appears to have consciousness?
- >
- >>A soul.
- >
- >You are assuming that souls exist (outside the philosophical abstraction) and
-
- You are assuming they don't. Why is this better? I'm not assuming anything.
- I'm admitting that I don't know.
-
- >that they are conscious and that they do not themselves have anything that
- >is "like a brain". I find the first two highly suspect and consider the third
- >to contradict the second.
-
- Have you pursued the question of whether a brain has anything that is "like a
- soul"? That idea contradicts nothing.
-
- What I find to be highly suspect is the idea of arbitrarily cutting a
- dividing line across humanity on the basis of some half-understood notion of
- sentience, when there is an alternative point of personhood available that,
- on the face of it, is a quantum leap away from being one individual and
- towards being another - this is the point of conception. A legal definition
- of personhood placed at birth is fine - and no matter where you place the
- point of personhood a woman should be entitled to obtain an abortion anyway -
- but to portray this or any other opinion of personhood as fact is offensive.
-
- >Remind me to post the story of the two people who were stranded on a paradise
- >garden island sometime.
-
- Remind me to post the story of the zygote they called Darwin sometime.
-
- >-Rob
-
- --
- 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'
-
-