NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/talk/abortion/31324

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-12 | 9.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!news.u.washington.edu!usenet.coe.montana.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!sun-barr!male.EBay.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM!emarsh
From: [e-mail] (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A comment on RvW
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:36:26 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>><[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <o4d8po4@fido.a <Aug12.0551
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 199
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <[e-mail]>>[e-mail] (Steven Arnold) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>,
>[e-mail] (Eric Marsh) writes:

>>>>>>>>> From where I stand, there is no third person. A fetus is nothing more
>>>>>>>>> than developing tissue - there is nobody there.

>>>>    The data about brain development is true enough, but the arrertion that
>>>>no "me" is present is theological gibberish.  It is your opinion.

>>>Again, my premis is based on current scientific knowledge. Awareness is
>>>a function of brain activity. This is simple fact. No brain, no awareness.
>>>The "me" that I am referring to is the awareness that is the result of
>>>the activity of my brain.

>    You are saying that awareness is necessary to personhood.  Prove it.

We have already been through the debate about the meaning of the word
"personhood." If you remember, we agreed that it was not the word that
was important, it was the underlying concept.

The concept that I am putting forth is that what we value and protect
(often useing the label "personhood") is sentient beings. Now you are back
to playing semantical games. Why don't we just deal with the issue at
hand; if our issue is not to protect another being because it is
intellegent and aware, then why do we bother at all? What is your rational?
Why should I go along with it?

>>>>>>    Neither the sperm nor the egg are living members of the human species.

>>>>> Wrong. Both the sperm and the egg are:

>>>>> 1> living
>>>>> 2> human tissue

>>>>    This does not make them living members of the species homo sapiens.
>>>>Neither a sperm nor an egg is a living member of the species homo
>>>>sapiens.  One characteristic of a member of a species is that it grows
>>>>into a more developed member of its species and that, once sufficiently
>>>>developed, it can reproduce other members of its species.  No mere human
>>>>tissue can make either of these claims; therefore, no mere human tissue
>>>>can be called a living member of the human species.  Your point is quite
>>>>erroneous.  Documentation provided upon request (oh, I forgot, you've
>>>>already requested.  Well, you'll see it soon enough).

>>>So what you are doing here is providing a more specialized definition
>>>of what is a living member of the human species. One, I might note
>>>that does not take into account possible future technologies such as
>>>cloning. Given that you have provided constraints upon the definition
>>>of "a living member of he human species", why should I not be able to
>>>apply my own, additional constraints?

>    According to medical science, a new member of the human species is
>created at conception and at no other time.  I am neither qualified nor
>inclined to debate it further than this.  Show me expert testimony
>supporting your various claims and I will consider them.

So you believe that simply because something is a member of "species
homo sapient" it should be protected, even at the price of physical harm
or death to another member of that species. No other factors are important.

Why should I agree with you?

>>>All that aside, we return to the questions of "why" should this certain
>>>thing (whatever that thing may be) be given the freedoms (which is what
>>>rights are) to infringe upon another thing? I for one don't see mere
>>>membership in the human species to be sufficient cause to allow it to
>>>remove the rights of a more advanced member of that species.

>    Why should human beings like yourself have human rights?  Why?  Why, if
>someone else injures you, are they obligated to try to help you?  Why?
>    Why why why.

The only why that I can see is that society is composed of individuals,
and to protect themselves the individual members of society have created
the concept of "rights." (BTW, the evidence supports this perspective.)

Disagree with me? Ponder this then; there are no rights in the wild.

>>>Hey, pro-lifers distort the truth and lie all the time in support of
>>>their agenda. Why should pro-life physicans be any different?

>    But why should pro-choice doctors, who I can also quote to the same
>effect, distort the truth to the apparent advantage of the pro-life
>movement?  Guess what?  I called Planned Parenthood here in Ft. Collins
>a couple months back, and when I asked them whether the fetus is a
>member of the human species from conception onward, guess what the lady
>said?  She said, "We won't deny the facts of fetal development."  She
>admits the unborn child is a human being, for it is.  She merely denies
>it should be granted human rights, an opinion I consider to be arbitrary.

Ok, so you consider her opinion to be arbitrary. I consider yours to be
arbitrary as well. Do we agree to disagree? If so, is there any purpose
to continuing this discussion?

>    Besides, even pro-life doctors probably wouldn't risk their reputations
>and careers putting forth medical nonsense.
>    And one last thing:  I have never heard ANY doctor of ANY persuasion
>deny that the unborn child is a member of the species homo sapiens from
>conception onward.  Show me such a quote and I'll be impressed.

Fine. So what?

>>>What about identical twins?

>    The directives for the development of ALL human beings, i.e., their
>chromosomal makeup, is defined at conception, even for twins.  I am not
>a doctor, but if you deny this, you're denying the opinion of many, many
>doctors.  On what basis?  Where is the proof for your assertions?

You said that the beginning of the individual life started when the sperm
invades the egg, and asked for me to provide a counter example. Identical
twins are a good counter example, because the beginning of each _individual_
life begins when the group of cells split.

>>>I don't believe in souls. End of your argument that my dogma is theological.
>>>I stand on the scientific evidence showing the relationship between
>>>brain functionality and consciousness. There is plenty of such evidence.

>    Prove to me that lack of awareness proves lack of personhood.
>    In fact, tell me what test you'll use, or what non-circular argument
>you'll appeal to, to prove even that AWARENESS proves personhood.

Again, you are playing semantical games here, and you argeed earlier
that what was important was not the meaning of words, but rather the
underlying issues.

I say that the underlying issue is human awareness, for without human
awareness there would be not issue.

>>>My argument is that we value consiousness, not living tissue. In the case
>>>of abortion, the woman is a consciousness, the z/e/f is living tissue.
>>>Therefore the interests of the woman should come before the z/e/f.

>    Oh, really.  Then surely we wouldn't value the mere "living tissue" of
>a man in non-dreaming sleep.  He's not aware of much of anything, is he?
>>Or someone in a coma?  Do we value THAT living tissue?  Or a newborn?
>Or a person who is severly mentally handicapped?  Do we value all THAT tissue?

But the man is an aware being, that is temporarly in a non-aware state.
The case of someone in a coma is more complex, because the person may or
may not be capable of recovery.

>>>>> The real issue here is, what attributes are important, and why are they
>>>>> important?

>>>>    The attribute of being a separate being, generating DNA and growing in
>>>>accordance with the directions of that DNA, are the necessary attributes
>>>>for being a living human being, your opinion to the contrary
>notwithstanding.

>>>So what you are saying is that the growth of tissue with a certain DNA
>>>is the most important thing, not the interests of conscious beings. This
>>>seems like a pretty strange set of priorities to me.

>    And what does that prove?
>    it is my opinion that we are not entitled to decide which living human
>beings have rights and which do not, for if we can make that
>determination based on no proof and nothing but circular arguments, we
>can, in the end, place the dividing mark anywhere.

Fine. We all have our opinions. I wouldn't deny you yours.

>>>>>>> Human tissue is nothing particularly special.

>>>>>>    No, but being a living member of the human species is.

>>>>> To whom?  Why?

>>>>    It may not be important to everybody, but it SHOULD be.

>>>Truth by blatant assertion, anyone?

>    You place no value on being a living human being?
>    Hmmm.

No I don't. The mere fact that something is living that has a human
genetic code is no more significant than the fact that something is
living with the genetic code of say an ape or a bee. What I consider to
be significant is when there is an aware being involved, even if it
is not human.

>>>>It is
>>>>important because it marks the beginning of a new member of the human
>>>>species, a member whose rights to life, liberty and property (such as
>>>>they are) should be honored.

>>>More truth by blatant assertion, anyone?

>    You don't believe that the rights of living human beings ought to be honored?
>    Hmmm.
>    Where do rights come from, Eric?

I described that a little earlier in this post. Where do you think they
come from?

>Steve

Eric