NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/talk/abortion/54705

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-08 | 4.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!charnel!rat!usc!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!noao!amethyst!organpipe.uug.arizona.edu!news
From: [e-mail] (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:55:13 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group
Lines: 84

From article <[e-mail]>,
by [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran):
> In article <[e-mail]>
> [e-mail] (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>>From article <[e-mail]>,
>>by [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran):
>>> In article <[e-mail]>
>>> [e-mail] (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>>>>From article <[e-mail]>,
>>>>by [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran):
>>>>> In article <[e-mail]>
>>>>> [e-mail] (Stephen Matheson) writes:

[Deletions necessary and performed reluctantly.  The perceived
rights of the posters were not considered.  Not even for a second.]

>>> 1) Are *our* communications nothing more then responses to situations?
>>> Yes, ours are (hopefully) more sophisticated. It doesn't make a 7 week
>>> old babies efforts less meaningful.

>>> 2) I've never seen a fetus that could communicate at even the level of
>>> a 7 week old baby.

>>I'm just not sure.  I would think that when discussing personhood
>>we would want to be more sure.  What if the difference between a
>>fetus and a neonate is more quantitative than qualitative?

> Can you provide an example of what you would call a quantitative
> rather then qualitative difference?

Well, consider the difference between our son at age 3 weeks vs. at
7 weeks.  While it's possible that during this time he has acquired
some completely novel cognitive functions accompanied by some new
mode of communication, it's just as plausible that he's just getting
better at using the skills/abilities he already has.  The former is
a qualitative difference, the latter quantitative.  I do not mean to
imply that I have any reason to believe that *all* fetuses and
neonates are qualitatively the same.  But I do suspect that *some*
fetuses are qualitatively capable of the same communication as
neonates.  My conclusion: a philosophy of personhood based on
the simple "ability to communicate" either needs a lot of massaging
or is doomed to include fetuses as persons.

>>[deleted, but good]

>>> What I do object to is people (no, I'm not accusing you) who try to
>>> legislate this. I don't see it as fit for legislation.

>>I agree, although perhaps for different reasons than most.

>>> Basically, I think the issue is adequately dealt with by medical
>>> ethics and professional standards.

>>I think you'd agree that complete laissez faire in terms of medical
>>ethics is not necessarily the best way to operate.

> No, complete reliance upon medical ethics is not perfect, and I don't
> advocate it.
> What I do rely on is the combination of medical ethics (which is
> backed by some pretty stringent disiplinary measures when violated -
> such as losing the license to practice) and the ability of the
> individual considering abortion to make their own rational choices.
> Instead of trying to legislate the issue, we would be better searved
> by funding some efforts towards real solutions. I.E. some real
> education for kids about sex and contraception, the realities of
> children raising children, nad the optionis available if/when unwanted
> pregnancies occur.

Mark, you stupid pro-death twit!!!!!!  Oops.  Wait a second.  Darn.
Looks like we agree on yet another point in our discussion.  Aren't
we supposed to be flaming each other and insulting each other's
ancestors?

Seriously, I do have some qualms about unrestricted application of
medical ethics.  However, I perceive that our disagreement is
merely quantitative, not qualitative.  Get it?

[Rest deleted.  Please read Mark's post.  Good stuff about life
support and allowing people to die.]

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
[e-mail]