home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!netcomsv!netcom.com!ray
- From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
- Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
- Message-ID: <1993Jan26.045023.6010@netcom.com>
- Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
- References: <1993Jan24.182831.4886@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> <1993Jan25.010353.4466@netcom.com> <1993Jan25.025536.7892@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 04:50:23 GMT
- Lines: 31
-
- mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes ...
- > ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
- >>It can be argued that since a 8 1/2 month fetus doesn't _need_ to
- >>derive sustenance directly from the mother, that it is therefore a
- >>person.
- >>
- >Get your terms straight Ray. As long as it *is* a fetus, it *must*
- >derive sustenance directly from the woman.
-
- Are you arguning that the only rlevent criterion for personhood is
- whether or not said entity is or is not inside a mother? That
- regardless of any other considerations, a fetus is not a person until
- after it is removed from the mother?
-
- >Ray, it should be obvious that the feeding baby could be fed by
- >*anybody* since there are plenty of alternatives to breastfeeding. Or
- >is your definition of 'person' so simplistic that it only takes one
- >factor into account? Mine certainly isn't. As for your last statement,
- >I'll say it again. as long as it is a fetus, it must take all
- >sustenance directly from the woman.
-
- Which is a largely meaningless statement. It is a tautology and as
- such is pretty useless. A proto-human of 8.5 months gestation need
- not take all of its sustenance from its mother. In most cases it can
- be removed from the mother and be given sustenance by another. Does
- the fact that it does receive sole sustenance from the mother make it
- a non-person?
-
- --
- Ray Fischer "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
- ray@netcom.com than lies." -- Friedrich Nietszsche
-