sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (07/08/85)
> > It seems to me that since the fetus of 1 minute and the child of one > > month differ only in the amount of time since conception. They > > share the same genetic information, and are thus the same person. Oh, then why bother going through this silly process known as pregnancy? If they are the same person, then let's pop them out of the oven right after conception. It would save some of us women a lot of trouble. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (07/11/85)
> > > It seems to me that since the fetus of 1 minute and the child of one > > > month differ only in the amount of time since conception. They > > > share the same genetic information, and are thus the same person. > Oh, then why bother going through this silly process known as pregnancy? > If they are the same person, then let's pop them out of the oven right > after conception. It would save some of us women a lot of trouble. There are differences between the child of 5 years, the teenager of 15 years, and the adult of 50 years, also. Would you say that because the child of 5 years is fairly short and (almost always) not ready to attend college, s/he is not the same person as the adult of 50 years who is much taller and has much more knowledge? Or would you claim that if they are the same person, there is no need to bother going through the silly process of education? Change in human beings is much more pronounced towards the beginning and end of their lifetimes. Does this really come as a surprise?
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (07/16/85)
}> > > It seems to me that since the fetus of 1 minute and the child of one }> > > month differ only in the amount of time since conception. They }> > > share the same genetic information, and are thus the same person. } }> Oh, then why bother going through this silly process known as pregnancy? }> If they are the same person, then let's pop them out of the oven right }> after conception. It would save some of us women a lot of trouble. } }There are differences between the child of 5 years, the teenager of 15 years, }and the adult of 50 years, also. Would you say that because the child of 5 }years is fairly short and (almost always) not ready to attend college, s/he }is not the same person as the adult of 50 years who is much taller and has }much more knowledge? Or would you claim that if they are the same person, }there is no need to bother going through the silly process of education? } }Change in human beings is much more pronounced towards the beginning and end }of their lifetimes. Does this really come as a surprise? Good point. The main question is, why do these differences even make a difference when it comes to whether or not we may end the life of certain individuals? Perhaps the first person here should have used the word "individual" rather than "person". Sophie (second quote) seems to take "person" to mean "personality"; to her own advantage, of course. I think you have pointed out that using the length of a individual's life and the experiences she has had (which go into making her the person she is, in Sophie's sense of the word) as a basis for considering whether or not we may kill that individual, does not make sense. I hope that is not what Sophie was trying to imply. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
seshadri@t12tst.UUCP (Raghavan Seshadri) (07/17/85)
> From: sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) > > > > It seems to me that since the fetus of 1 minute and the child of one > > > month differ only in the amount of time since conception. They > > > share the same genetic information, and are thus the same person. > > Oh, then why bother going through this silly process known as pregnancy? > If they are the same person, then let's pop them out of the oven right > after conception. It would save some of us women a lot of trouble. > -- > Sophie Quigley The flaw in Sophie's argument is easy to spot.The phrase 'same person' was meant in the sense of 'share the same genetic info',not 'identical in every way'.When a child grows up to be an adult,we sort of assume it is the same person but surely we do not treat them both the same way.Will you let your 5 year old cross a busy street,drive a car .....? -- Raghu Seshadri
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (07/19/85)
>> Change in human beings is much more pronounced towards the beginning and end >> of their lifetimes. Does this really come as a surprise? > Good point. The main question is, why do these differences even make a > difference when it comes to whether or not we may end the life of certain > individuals? Why do they make a difference? Because according rights to people on the basis that they contain certain genetic material is racism, pure and simple. Rights stem from values, which require a rational faculty. The concept of rights is meaningless to an entity that cannot form concepts. And if an entity CAN form concepts, genetic material is irrelevant.
plw@mgwess.UUCP (Pete Wilson) (07/20/85)
In article <4019@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) writes: >Why do they make a difference? Because according rights to people on >the basis that they contain certain genetic material is racism, >pure and simple. On the other hand, it is genetic material which differentiates humans from the other life forms on this planet. The genetic material, of course, being that which gives us our physical form. I don't think it has been proven that the same stuff gives us our "mental form". >Rights stem from values, which require a rational faculty. The concept ^^^^^^^ ^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ >of rights is meaningless to an entity that cannot form concepts. And >if an entity CAN form concepts, genetic material is irrelevant. Terrific! What say we save a bundle of bucks and "euthanize" all the folks in mental institutions? These people obviously aren't rational or they wouldn't be there. The reason we don't is that they have passed some arbitrary (possibly imaginary) point where they became "human beings". Pete Wilson AT&T IS CGBS Montgomery Works ..!ihnp4!mgnetp!mgwess!plw <If life begins at 40, what is it that ends at 39?>
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (07/21/85)
> }> > > It seems to me that since the fetus of 1 minute and the child of one > }> > > month differ only in the amount of time since conception. They > }> > > share the same genetic information, and are thus the same person. > } me: > }> Oh, then why bother going through this silly process known as pregnancy? > }> If they are the same person, then let's pop them out of the oven right > }> after conception. It would save some of us women a lot of trouble. > } Objections from different sources. Ok, let me rephrase the above. Of course the embryo of one minute and the new-born child (or 7-8 month old fetus) share the same genetic information and therefore are the same entity in different stages of development. However, they differ by much more than "the amount of time since conception". Their main difference is in their viability outside their mother's body. It is because of this difference that some women feel a need to have an abortion in the first place. Unlike the 1 minute blob and 3 month old embryo, the late fetus or new-born child can survive out of it's mother's body, which easily shows that some process of giving from the mother to the embryo has happened in between. This giving is of nurishment, and other unquantifiables. Anybody who is ignoring that another person is intimately involved in the development of embryos just to prove a point is acting in as much bad faith as anybody who is pretending that embryos are not alive to prove their own point. Abortion is not a simple issue. Presenting it in simplistic terms is not going to resolve anything. And nothing is going to be resolved anyway because there is simply no resolution to this problem. There have always been and will always be women who will need and have abortions, and there have always been and always will be people who will object to this. The truth is that abortion is not nice (call it criminal, whatever) but unwanted pregnancy is just as bad, and so far, we haven't found any way to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy without abortions. Technological solutions like processes for incubating early embryos will only open other cans of worms, such as state interference in the creation of people. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie