brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (11/30/84)
Let's talk about the real topic - what a legal human being, worthy of rights and freedoms, is. Point 1: All this talk about the humanity of the fetus is meaningless. Of course the fetus is an example of genus homo species sapiens. That's not what we're discussing. We are discussing legal status. Point 2: Membership in the species is not equal to full legal status. As a simple example, dead people. A more interesting example, children. While clearly members of the species, children are denied what we in society consider our fundamental rights. The younger they are, the fewer rights they have. For example you don't get franchise until 18. The right to engage in sex until 16. To drink at 21 in some states. Young children don't even have the right to property or self-detirmination. Point 3: Society has officially stated that legal status is lost with the loss of brain activity - "brain death", as it is called. Thus mental capacity is the official quality that gives legal status to a human. Now it's clear that a fetus has less mental capacity than, say, an adult pig. (You may try and dispute this, but the point is that there is no REAL SOLID EVIDENCE for your disagreement, and so you can't try and put it into law) Point 4: All that's left that a fetus has is the potential for mental capacity. That's all the ground anti-abortionists have to stand on. They have to prove that the potential for mental capacity is sacred and must be protected at all costs in law. Point 5: Recent developments in medical technique allow for an arbitrary sperm and ova to be combined in the lab and then inserted in a womb. Degree of success is within an order of magnitude of that for the ore enjoyable methods. This elevates indivudal sperm/egg cells to within close range of fertilized zygotes. They have almost the same potential, and as medicine advances, they will have the same potential. When each sperm and egg has the same potential as the fetus, one must either abandon all arguments based on potential, or go insane trying to enforce the obvious crazy laws that ensue. Point 6: Abortion must be made legal. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (12/03/84)
>From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) >Let's talk about the real topic - what a legal human being, worthy of >rights and freedoms, is. I think the real topic consists of a specific human right. The right to live. >Point 1: All this talk about the humanity of the fetus is meaningless. >Of course the fetus is an example of genus homo species sapiens. >That's not what we're discussing. We are discussing legal status. > >Point 2: Membership in the species is not equal to full legal status. >As a simple example, dead people. A more interesting example, children. >While clearly members of the species, children are denied what we in society >consider our fundamental rights. The younger they are, the fewer rights they >have. For example you don't get franchise until 18. The right to engage in >sex until 16. To drink at 21 in some states. Young children don't even have >the right to property or self-detirmination. They all have the basic right to live, however. Certain rights that you mention are not given because they can't be handled responsibly. Is the right to live based on the attainment of a certain ability. If so, what level and what is the reasoning for drawing the line? >Point 3: Society has officially stated that legal status is lost with the >loss of brain activity - "brain death", as it is called. Thus mental capacity >is the official quality that gives legal status to a human. Now it's >clear that a fetus has less mental capacity than, say, an adult pig. >(You may try and dispute this, but the point is that there is no REAL SOLID >EVIDENCE for your disagreement, and so you can't try and put it into law) (Let's use some of Ken Montgomery's argument here. It cuts both ways.) Society who? All this talk about society "deciding" things puzzles me. Society is not a reasoning being, it makes no "official statements". To personify society in this way seems to me to be invoking the mandate of a non-person. This is convienient because opponents can't examine the reasoning of "society" to see if it is faulty, if it is wrong it is a convienient thing to blame but it is not culpable as a person would be. When one invokes society as an authority there is no arguing against it. It is fair to speak of society having laws that express certain values but It does not thereby make "decisions"--which implies a reasoning process-- and certainly does not make it an authority to appeal to. When we speak of society we speak of what is (i.e. what most people tolerate--perhaps ignorantly or grudginly) not necessarly what ought to be. Brad seems to be arguing that "is" implies "ought". But society is not a figment of our imagination, as Ken says, it is a term used in describing the general state of affairs. Anyway, given that "brain death" or the Harvard Criteria are a good rule for deciding the legal point of death, how does it follow that it is also good for deciding the legal beginning of human life? Everything that is already living we expect to die. If a "brain dead" person is being artifically sustained and we remove the apparatus total death follows to confirm our judgement (presumably we have good reason to believe that the patient would not recover with continued treatment). But here you are advocating the use of the same criteria at the other end of life's spectrum--on a human that we have every reason to believe will live and develop (to "recover" from its lack of brain activity, so to speak). How do you justify this? With the "brain dead" person we simply cease our efforts to preserve his life and let him pass naturally on to inevitable death. But with the fetus you would use it to justify actively and intentionally killing it. You are saying that because we use the criteria to justify non-intervention resulting in death we may also use it to justify intervention resulting in death. Does this really make sense to you? Also when the "brain dead" person passes from one "legal status to another" he passes out of existence. This makes your example above of dead people having less rights than live ones seem totally irrelevant. Yet, in the case of the fetus, you're using the same criteria to say when it passes from something on the level of a pig to more of a human. > >Point 4: All that's left that a fetus has is the potential for mental >capacity. That's all the ground anti-abortionists have to stand on. >They have to prove that the potential for mental capacity is sacred and must >be protected at all costs in law. Here you're treating the fetus as if it were in its fully developed state (comparing it to an adult pig) as if it will never be anything more. If your going to say that a humans right to life depends on their mental capacity at a certain point in time (knowing full well it will develop in the future) you could run into problems. Suppose a physical condition (sickness, whatever) impares you mental ability for a time. At that point in time you might fall below the threshold and by your criteria you could be killed rather than treated no matter how likely the treatment would make your future recovery. If the future state of the mind is not a consideration for the fetus why should it be for you? You see, we do recognise the right for people to live in such cases and when we do we are taking their future condition into account. Why should your potential for recovery from sickness be recognised if the potential for mental capacity isn't for the fetus? > >Point 5: Recent developments in medical technique allow for an arbitrary >sperm and ova to be combined in the lab and then inserted in a womb. Degree >of success is within an order of magnitude of that for the ore enjoyable >methods. This elevates indivudal sperm/egg cells to within close range >of fertilized zygotes. They have almost the same potential, and as medicine >advances, they will have the same potential. When each sperm and egg has >the same potential as the fetus, one must either abandon all arguments based >on potential, or go insane trying to enforce the obvious crazy laws that >ensue. I still don't buy that argument. It all depends on if fertilization ocurrs or not. Sperm and ova don't have that potential in themselves. >Point 6: Abortion must be made legal. I think it should be made both illegal and unnecessary. Making it legal has done little to make it unnecessary. -- The "resurrected", Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (12/04/84)
> > >From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) > >Point 6: Abortion must be made legal. > > I think it should be made both illegal and unnecessary. Making it legal has > done little to make it unnecessary. > > Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd While point 6 is a totally unsubstantiated assertion, I think that the answer to it given above is ridiculous. Making abortion illegal certainly has done nothing to make it unnecessary, all it has done is to make it dangerous for the mother. So, Paul, how does one make abortion unnecessary? the only fail-safe way I could think of would be to sterilise all women of child-bearing age, or better yet, kill them all. Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley
act@pur-phy.UUCP (Alex C. Tselis) (12/04/84)
> > >From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) > > >Point 6: Abortion must be made legal. > > > > I think it should be made both illegal and unnecessary. Making it legal has > > done little to make it unnecessary. > > > > Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd > > While point 6 is a totally unsubstantiated assertion, I think that the answer > to it given above is ridiculous. Making abortion illegal certainly has done > nothing to make it unnecessary, all it has done is to make it dangerous for > the mother. > > So, Paul, how does one make abortion unnecessary? the only fail-safe way I > could think of would be to sterilise all women of child-bearing age, or > better yet, kill them all. > > Sophie Quigley > ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley If abortion is made totally illegal, we will be back to the old situation, as Ms. Quigley asserts. Do the so-called "prolifers" know what that was? Backroom abortions done by dirty little old abortionists, reeking of alcohol, and using dirty knitting needles. Do the "prolifers" know what the leading cause of death for young women was back in those days? I give you one guess. (Hint: It wasn't Von Recklinghausen's neurofibromatosis. It wasn't periarteritis nodosa. It wasn't even Cushing's syndrome. I'm sure that lots of you might guess that it was polycystic disease of the kidneys. Well, it wasn't that either.) So far as I'm concerned, every death due to those old backroom abortions was an execution by the state. There were lots of deaths of that sort. (Made your guess yet?) For those fortunate ones who made it through, the complications and sequelae were numerous, and not at all fun. I'll spare myself the descriptions.
johnston@spp1.UUCP (12/06/84)
> > If abortion is made totally illegal, we will be back to the old situation, > as Ms. Quigley asserts. Do the so-called "prolifers" know what that was? > Backroom abortions done by dirty little old abortionists, reeking of alcohol, > and using dirty knitting needles. Fortunately, and due by a strange twist to the abortion movement, back alley abortion will never be the same. The majority of abortions are performed by a suction apparatus now that doctors claim anyone can operate safely and that is commercially available. I'm certain that free enterprise being what it is, most back alley abortions will provide this minimum and prices will be competitive enough to allow it to any class. Knitting needles just won't bring in the business anymore. Mike Johnston
pws@faron.UUCP (Phillip W. Servita) (12/06/84)
In article <cbscc.4230> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes: >Here you're treating the fetus as if it were in its fully developed state >(comparing it to an adult pig) as if it will never be anything more. If your >going to say that a humans right to life depends on their mental capacity >at a certain point in time (knowing full well it will develop in the future) >you could run into problems. Suppose a physical condition (sickness, whatever) >impares you mental ability for a time. At that point in time you might >fall below the threshold and by your criteria you could be killed rather >than treated no matter how likely the treatment would make your future >recovery. If the future state of the mind is not a consideration for the >fetus why should it be for you? You see, we do recognise the right for >people to live in such cases and when we do we are taking their future >condition into account. Why should your potential for recovery from sickness >be recognised if the potential for mental capacity isn't for the fetus? > You are making some assumptions about what WE think here. maybe YOU recognize the right for people to 'metabolize' (not live) in such cases, but *I* do not. Suppose i am in such a state. Then my parents, friends, spouse, etc. has the right to give such treatment or not, depending on whether they feel they want me around. I will have no knowledge of the situation, and certainly cannot be hurt by the decision made. As far as I am concerned, THAT WHICH HAS NO CONSCIOUSNESS HAS NO RIGHTS. If object "x" has no consciousness, then object "x" has no rights. whether or not object "x" WILL HAVE consciousness is of NO BEARING to the principle. of course, person/group Y has the right to defend object "x", PROVIDED Y TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR "x", and PROVIDED THAT Y DOES NO HARM TO ANYTHING ELSE WITH RIGHTS. (flames DO belong here, not net.philosophy, ill be glad to shoot you down) Unfortunately, only recently have the laws regarding such cases have begun to recognize this principle. -the venn buddhist -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "if people knew how to fly, they wouldnt want to walk their dogs" -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "if people knew how to fly, they wouldnt want to walk their dogs" --------------------------------------------------------------------------
egs@epsilon.UUCP (Ed Sheppard) (12/16/84)
In response to Paul Dubuc, Phillip Servita writes: > As far as > I am concerned, THAT WHICH HAS NO CONSCIOUSNESS HAS NO RIGHTS. If object > "x" has no consciousness, then object "x" has no rights. whether or not > object "x" WILL HAVE consciousness is of NO BEARING to the principle. Ok Phil. Now if you'll only provide us with a test for consciousness. This object can hardly wait. Ed Sheppard
brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson) (12/17/84)
47 From: egs@epsilon.UUCP (Ed Sheppard)
47 In response to Paul Dubuc, Phillip Servita writes:
47 > As far as
47 > I am concerned, THAT WHICH HAS NO CONSCIOUSNESS HAS NO RIGHTS. If object
47 > "x" has no consciousness, then object "x" has no rights. whether or not
47 > object "x" WILL HAVE consciousness is of NO BEARING to the principle.
47
47 Ok Phil. Now if you'll only provide us with a test for consciousness. This
47 object can hardly wait.
47 Ed Sheppard
Reality is not discrete. Reality is not simple.
Conciousness is a very very abstract concept. It also is not
a simple discrete thing. Conciousness is not like dollars or acres
or numbers of votes or pounds of flesh. A test that would say
"concious entity" or "not concious entity" is a silly thing to
want.
However, conciousness is a concept that just about everyone
can understand, though they might have different names or perceptions
of it, and their conception of it might be vague.
A thing can be very very real and also be very vague or unknown.
Conciousness is like that. We haven't managed to define it
in precise measurable terms, so we can't provide a simple
algorithm for calculating whether or when a given entity
is concious. However, just about everyone has the notion
of "more" and "less" conciousness. Rocks, frogs, and trees
don't have much, if any. Dogs, cats, gorillas, dolphins,
and other animals which act cleverly and seem to show
emotions have more conciousness. We have the most.
(naturally :-)
We can apply the notion of conciousness to fetuses, also.
All that we have to do is to compare fetuses to other entities
which we consider to have various levels of conciousness.
We just have to look for the characteristics which make us think
of conciousness. These are things like intelligence, and
emotions. (The ability to feel pain and jerk away is neither.
Animals which we consider mindless beasts can feel pain.)
A test that you can program into your computer just won't do.
You will have to use your right brain.
Brian Peterson
...! {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianpegs@epsilon.UUCP (Ed Sheppard) (12/19/84)
Brad: Let's look again at what Phil said, to wit: that which has no consciousness has no rights or more clearly: !conscious(X) -> !has_rights(X). At the risk of putting words in Phil's mouth, I suggest that he meant conscious(X) -> has_rights(X) as well. I assert that "conscious(X)" and "!conscious(X)" are untestable (except in my case :-), and that the above rules are useless as a means of determining either "has_rights(X)" or "!has_rights(X)". That's all I was trying to get across. You say that wanting a test for "conscious(X)" is silly. Well, I (and probably Turing :-) would disagree with you. Of course, perhaps your idea of consciousness is different from mine (and maybe Phil's too). I take consciousness to be synonymous with self-awareness since that's the only kind I've ever experienced. You say the 'just about everyone has the notion of "more" or "less" consciousness.' I don't. An entity is either aware of itself or not. If you mean that different entities display varying levels of behavioral complexity, no problem. But behavioral complexity in not necessarily related to awareness of self. In particular, your examples of intelligence and emotional display give no insight into the subjective experience (if any) of any person or dog or rock etc.. BTW, my 'right brain'? I've only got one. Ed Sheppard Bell Communications Research
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (12/28/84)
[] From faron!pws (Phillip W. Servita): >>[Paul Dubuc] Suppose a physical condition (sickness, whatever) >>impares you mental ability for a time. At that point in time you might >>fall below the threshold and by your criteria you could be killed rather >>than treated no matter how likely the treatment would make your future >>recovery. > > You are making some assumptions about what WE think here. maybe YOU >recognize the right for people to 'metabolize' (not live) in such cases, >but *I* do not. Suppose i am in such a state. Then my parents, friends, >spouse, etc. has the right to give such treatment or not, depending on >whether they feel they want me around. I will have no knowledge of the >situation, and certainly cannot be hurt by the decision made. As far as >I am concerned, THAT WHICH HAS NO CONSCIOUSNESS HAS NO RIGHTS. This is absolutely absurd. Do you even read what you write before posting it? By your "logic" someone could justifiably murder you in your sleep (no "consciousness"). At the risk of assuming there was *some* sense in your posting, I would assume you were really talking about brain-dead or long-term coma cases where chances of recovery are minimal. If so read Dubuc's quote again; the two situations are different. P.S. I'm pro-choice, if that matters. - conscious 'til tonite - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry SOURCE: ST7891