home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!noc.near.net!hri.com!spool.mu.edu!yale.edu!cs.yale.edu!rtnmr.chem.yale.edu!rescorla
- From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion
- Subject: Re: Protecting newborn infants as non-persons
- Message-ID: <1992Nov8.012415.769@cs.yale.edu>
- Date: 8 Nov 92 01:24:15 GMT
- References: <1992Nov4.212409.14253@ncsu.edu> <1992Nov4.232724.25475@cs.yale.edu> <1992Nov7.205403.13137@ncsu.edu>
- Sender: news@cs.yale.edu (Usenet News)
- Organization: Rescorla for himself.
- Lines: 29
- Nntp-Posting-Host: rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
-
- In article <1992Nov7.205403.13137@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
- >In article <1992Nov4.232724.25475@cs.yale.edu>
- >> So what's your point?
- >
- >If newborn infants are defined as non-persons, then a particular
- >infant may be killed when society's interests aren't served by
- >protecting that infant.
- Yes, I still don't get your point. This is in practice true for persons
- as well. See below.
-
- >> This is, in practice, true for persons
- >> too. Consider the draft.
- >
- >The draft is not an example of society killing its own members.
- Gee, they seem to end up dead, don't they.
-
- >> If one places on infants a value just
- >> short of persons, I fail to see the practical difference.
- >Please define the phrase "a value just short of persons".
- Value V such that !(Ef):((f has value V')&&(!f is a person)&&(V'>V))
- -Ekr
-
-
-
- --
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S) rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
- Former chemist now CM400 mechanic ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
- "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
-