home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!olivea!spool.mu.edu!wupost!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!dtix!oasys!bense
- From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion
- Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion
- Message-ID: <25063@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
- Date: 15 Sep 92 15:41:16 GMT
- References: <1992Sep12.225124.20051@watson.ibm.com> <88939@netnews.upenn.edu>
- Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
- Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD
- Lines: 29
-
- In talk.abortion, kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch) writes:
- ]>Ron
-
- ]>I do hold that just because it looks human, talks/walks like
- ]>a human, and may even think, that it not necessarily is a person. Take
- ]>Ted Bundy or Jeffery Dahlmer for instance, they are more animal than
- ]>human (regarding civilized behavior). Take an intelligent chimp or gorilla,
- ]>they appear more human than animal. Which would you rather have in your
- ]>house?
-
- >Well, the answer is obvious there. But the two human beings are more (ARE)
- >persons than are the monkeys.
-
- >Persons can waive rights, since they have the ability to conceive and
- >understand rights, right from wrong, good from bad ( in most cases). These
- >two men waived there rights.
-
- I agree that they did, but the question you should ask for a truly philo-
- sophical view is, did they realize what they were waiving during the
- act, or were they not conscious of it then or even after it was pointed
- out to them? If they were not aware even afterwards, then it can be
- argued that they failed your criteria.
-
- >Perhaps we should stick to the use of person to describe us and genetic human
- >being to refer to fetuses.
-
- This will be fine and acceptable.
-
- Ron
-