archiel@hercules.UUCP (Archie Lachner) (04/26/84)
In Japanese culture, I think I heard once, a person's age is counted
from the moment of conception, not birth. Would more knowledgeable
people on the net please comment?
Also, if the "moment of humanness" is at birth, what does one make of
birth by Caesarean section? Does the surgical interference with the
birth process change the "humanness" of the fetus. When does the fetus
become a human being? When the incision is made? When the baby is
actually removed from the womb? When the decision to do the surgery
is made? When the procedure starts? This concept of a fetus to human
transition at birth is difficult to deal with here. Because of C-sections,
this definition could be made subjective. I don't think it's a workable
one because of this consideration.
--
Archie Lachner
Logic Design Systems Division
Tektronix, Inc.
uucp: {ucbvax,decvax,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!tektronix!teklds!archiel
CSnet: archiel@tek
ARPAnet: archiel.tek@csnet-relayrcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (04/28/84)
<> >Also, if the "moment of humanness" is at birth, what does one make of >birth by Caesarean section? If you can't solve a tricky question, does that mean you can't solve a simple one? Come on, we're discussing abortion here. At the point of a Caesarean section, it's clear that abortion isn't an issue any more. Backing off a bit, why is it so hard to get rid of the stupid idea of "moment of humanness" or whatever you need to call it? It isn't a black/white (perhaps you like 0/1?) question. It never has been. It never will be. It cannot be. Science cannot answer questions of semantics. You decide whether a fetus is included in the definition of "human" when you define the word "human". Science does not define words. (How many ways do I have to explain it?) Moment of humanness, or starting point, or whatever you want to call it, can be chosen at any of a number of arbitrary points. It serves a function in legal terms of establishing age, and for that purpose alone it doesn't matter much where you choose it as long as it's consistent. Parturition is convenient because it's generally easy to pinpoint. How do you know when conception occurs? -- ...Cerebus for dictator! Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303) 444-5710 x3086
kenn@sdccsu3.UUCP (04/29/84)
[] From: ..!gatech!owens (Gerald Owens) > Ok, What ARE the circumstances and differences between a fetus, criminals, > children and olderfolks that allows criminals to be executed, murderers > of children and olderfolks to be executed, and a fetus to be killed > by the private decision of another person? We know that they are similar, > i.e. alive, so how are they significantly different to merit such > different treatment? I just want to have them stated, in the open, so > that if any laws are or are not going to be changed, then they'll be based > on something solid Solid what? The greatest limitation to this newsgroup is that we all have different definitions on everythig! Something solid, huh? Solid what? Solid BS that you or five million other netters will strike down as being only a biological definition and others as it being a religios def. and others as ultiltarian or pragmatic or everything-else-under-the-sun-ic! You won't get anything very solid to work with here. The world is what the people in it think it is. If you want the people of the world to conclude things with you, you have to argue with them to THEIR thinking. Nobody can just pick a def and say, "this is it." Thus most defs. suggested to you will be flamed by someone. Why don't you try not to cop out on a "no solid evidence" plea and argue in some abstract terms? Abstraction is nice because it can fit into everyone's way of thinking. Now, answer my previous article! Kenn the Kenf ...!sdcsvax!kenn ...!sdcsvax!sdccs6!ix192 ...!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!kenn
liberte@uiucdcs.UUCP (04/30/84)
#R:tekig:-196800:uiucdcs:44700020:000:1048
uiucdcs!liberte Apr 29 19:09:00 1984
/**** uiucdcs:net.abortion / hercules!archiel / 3:48 am Apr 28, 1984 ****/
When does the fetus become a human being?
When the incision is made? When the baby is
actually removed from the womb? When the decision to do the surgery
is made? When the procedure starts? /* ---------- */
No one has responded to my suggestion that the fetus becomes a human being
(in the important sense) at the first breath. If it never takes a first
breath, no matter how it was grown and born, then it never becomes human.
(I'll agree there is human life in a biological sense long before.)
This is a serious suggestion. Consider it. What are the problems with it?
Are there cases where a "clearly" alive human being does not breathe,
whether or not they are hooked up to a machine that helps them breathe.
I am not suggesting that breathing is the essense of human life, just that
the first breath is a good starting point.
Daniel LaLiberte, U of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Computer Science
{moderation in all things - including moderation}owens@gatech.UUCP (Gerald R. Owens) (05/02/84)
From Kenn: > > Ok, What ARE the circumstances and differences between a fetus, criminals, > > children and olderfolks that allows criminals to be executed, murderers > > of children and olderfolks to be executed, and a fetus to be killed > > by the private decision of another person? We know that they are similar, > > i.e. alive, so how are they significantly different to merit such > > different treatment? I just want to have them stated, in the open, so > > that if any laws are or are not going to be changed, then they'll be based > > on something solid >Solid what? The greatest limitation to this newsgroup is that we all have >different definitions on everythig! Something solid, huh? Solid what? >Solid BS that you or five million other netters will strike down as being >only a biological definition and others as it being a religios def. and >others as ultiltarian or pragmatic or everything-else-under-the-sun-ic! >You won't get anything very solid to work with here. The world is what the >people in it think it is. If you want the people of the world to conclude >things with you, you have to argue with them to THEIR thinking. That's why I asked. You pretended to know that the entities mentioned above were different, so I asked what you thought the significant differences were. >Nobody >can just pick a def and say, "this is it." Thus most defs. suggested to >you will be flamed by someone. Obviously. That's why the angle of working from differences might be more useful. Since there is agreement that SOME entities are human, and that the fetus is just one stage in the life cycle of Homo Sapiens (?), and that the allegation is that the fetus isn't human, then there must be something different between those entities and the fetus that determines humanness. >Why don't you try not to cop out on a >"no solid evidence" plea and argue in some abstract terms? Abstraction >is nice because it can fit into everyone's way of thinking. Now, answer >my previous article! > Kenn the Kenf I see no reason to "cop out", mainly because the alleged significant differences that people do have and the fetus does not (or vice versa) that qualifies the former to be humans and the fetus as not human have not been stated. The pro-life people claim that no such significant differences exist. You seem to know of one or more such differences that would invalidate such a claim, and I asked you since I'm not sure that I, or they, covered all the possibilities. So how can I answer your previous article if you know what that difference is, but I don't, and you won't tell me? Gerald Owens Owens@gatech p.s. If anyone else can tell me, please do so.
nuke@uwvax.ARPA (05/03/84)
I had replied to a previous article about definitions privately; but given your atricle, I've decided to share it with the entire group. I propose the following (similar) definition: A fetus becomes a human when the ambilical cord is cut. My reasoning is as follows: I believe that the fetus is mearyl one of the woman's appendages, similar to a finger etc. If the woman feels that (for what ever reason) she no longer desires to have this appendage attached to her, then it should be removed. Always open for a sound, unemotional, logical debate, Matthew J. Thurmaier (uwvax!nuke)