lvc@cbscc.UUCP (Larry Cipriani) (02/01/85)
The following is part of a correspondece that I've had with a fellow here at BTL. I hope this will clear up my argument for abortion. ====================================================================== I see how I've confused matters by not being precise. I'll start with the definitions that I've been working with. These may differ between us. (This will be a bit dry.) a) A human is any being that has the capacity to think. (Aristotle defined man as a rational animal.) b) A homo-sapien is a being with a particular kind of gene set. c) Rights are guarantees that force will not be used against a being. d) Abortion is the forced termination of a pregnancy. e) Only humans have rights. f) Humans have rights because they have the capacity to think. g) One right humans have is, the right to life. 1) Homo-sapiens that have the capacity to think can create a homo-sapien without the capacity to think. i.e. humans can create a non-humans. [not important in this note]. 2) Homo-sapiens without the capacity to think are not human -> homo-sapiens without the capacity to think don't have rights. 3) The capacity to think is shown by the presence of alpha/beta brain waves in homo-sapiens. Homo-sapien fetuses gain such waves at approximately the 28th week after conception -> fetuses gain the capacity to think at approximately the 28th week after conception -> fetuses are humans after approximately the 28th week after conception. 4) Fetuses are human after they have the capacity to think. Fetuses are not human until they have the capacity to think. 5) Fetuses may be aborted if they are not human. Fetuses may not be aborted if they are human. I hope this clears up what I'm saying. Please point out any unstated assumptions you find. After looking at this several times, I thought that if you [anyone] disagree[s] with my definition of human, I will let you use any definition you would like. Then I will try to defend the position that for *any* entity to be *rights possesing* it must have *volitional capacity*, that is, it must have the capacity to make decisions and choices. That will take a lot more work (another night). Lets try to keep this from breaking down into semantic trivialities. ====================================================================== I don't have any medical references to support point 3, but if someone wants me to (and is willing to pay for my time) I'll dig one up. If the responses to this are flames, I'll get this newsgroup (net.abortion) abolished. I have connections ! Larry Cipriani cbscc!lvc
mag@whuxlm.UUCP (Gray Michael A) (02/03/85)
From Larry Cirpiani: ( > ) > > I see how I've confused matters by not being precise. I'll start with > the definitions that I've been working with. These may differ between us. > (This will be a bit dry.) > > I hope this clears up what I'm saying. Please point out any unstated > assumptions you find. [Moved from end of article] > I'll mark all the unstated assumptions below. > a) A human is any being that has the capacity to think. > (Aristotle defined man as a rational animal.) This sounds like argument from authority. By "think", do you mean "think conceptually"? > b) A homo-sapien is a being with a particular kind of gene set. Close enough, although some humans have extra chromosomes, and I think they're still human. People afflicted with mongolism are one type. > c) Rights are guarantees that force will not be used against a being. Where do the guarantees come from? The existence of a guarantee assumes someone guaranteeing. By force, do you mean all force, or just the initiation of force? > d) Abortion is the forced termination of a pregnancy. I thought it was voluntary termination. What it is definition of "force" in this sentence. Is it the same as the one in c)? Are you referring to force against the fetus? Wouldn't normal birth qualify as a forced termination of a pregnancy with terms this loose? > e) Only humans have rights. Please define what you mean by right. Natural rights? Legal rights? If "natural", what is a natural right? From where does it devolve? If your answer is c), please clarify. > f) Humans have rights because they have the capacity to think. See the comments on c) and e). > g) One right humans have is, the right to life. Ditto as for the above. Where does this right come from? > 1) Homo-sapiens that have the capacity to think can create a homo-sapien > without the capacity to think. i.e. humans can create a non-humans. > [not important in this note]. You seem to sometimes use the word human to denote a species, and sometimes to denote a being with the capacity to think. Please define more clearly. > 2) Homo-sapiens without the capacity to think are not human -> homo-sapiens > without the capacity to think don't have rights. Why aren't they human? > 3) The capacity to think is shown by the presence of alpha/beta brain waves > in homo-sapiens. Homo-sapien fetuses gain such waves at approximately > the 28th week after conception -> fetuses gain the capacity to think > at approximately the 28th week after conception -> fetuses are humans > after approximately the 28th week after conception. Since it's "approximately" the 28th week (I don't know), what sort of a margin of safety would you advocate? (if any) > 4) Fetuses are human after they have the capacity to think. Fetuses > are not human until they have the capacity to think. > > 5) Fetuses may be aborted if they are not human. Fetuses may not be > aborted if they are human. What does humanness have to do with it? Is the following a proper paraphrase of your argument? If a fetus can't think, it's OK to kill it, since it's not human. Only humans have a right to life. If a fetus can think, then it's human, has a right to life, and must be protected. The above ignores any question of the any rights of the mother, and seems to advocate prohibiting abortions even if the mother's life is in danger. Is this your intent? It is often not apparent until late in a pregnancy if the mother is endangered. Also, some severe fetal defects are not detectable until late in a pregnancy. If anyone has any doubt, I am pro-choice, without respect to how much of the gestation period has elapsed. I think that abortions are usually undesirable and tragic, but I do not wish to force others to that view. Mike Gray, BTL WH
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (02/05/85)
> > c) Rights are guarantees that force will not be used against a being. > e) Only humans have rights. > f) Humans have rights because they have the capacity to think. > g) One right humans have is, the right to life. > > Please point out any unstated assumptions you find. > Sorry, you have obviously taken the time to think through what you are saying, but I found a major unstated assumption. You assume that beings can have "rights." Where are these "rights" of which you speak? May I see them? What does a "right" look like? Who doles them out? You have to assume that "rights" "exist" before you say that "this being has rights" and "this being does not," in the same way that you would say "this being has a spine" and "this being does not." -- scc!steiny Don Steiny - Personetics @ (408) 425-0382 ihnp4!pesnta -\ 109 Torrey Pine Terr. fortune!idsvax -> scc!steiny Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 ucbvax!twg -/