Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: The Status of the Fetus and Its Rights
Message-ID: <1631@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 3-Sep-85 15:30:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1631
Posted: Tue Sep  3 15:30:23 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Sep-85 02:36:45 EDT
References: <436@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 990

>>> Old habits are hard to change.  And it is still true that we can measure the
>>> date of birth more easily than the date of conception. [ROSEN]
                                                          ^^^^^^^
> Why are you attributing those two statements of mine to yourself?

An error in my attribution macros, simply a mistake.  My apologies for having
scarred your reputation by attributing your words to me.

>>You need to offer a good reason to break this "old habit".  I see none,
>>especially when the fetus is not an autonomous entity.

> I have been offering reasons.  However, the reason you see none is that
> your mind is closed.  Whenever you lose some point of debate, you start
> saying that your opponent's debating tactics are bad and make personal
> attacks on him/her.

Really?  Your debating tactics ARE bad, Mr. Newton.  For example, do you
offer any instances of where I made remarks about your debating tactics where
you DIDN'T either misquote or twist my words?  It's so interesting that you
twist the truth around to your own ends once again right here.  You are a
scurrilous liar, my friend.  I answer your "points" with substantive argument,
and it is YOU who leaves that substance out when responding in order to
further your position.

>>>>Newton, it's amazing how you can attempt to twist someone else's words to
>>>>try to make a point, and fail miserably.  It is a person, an autonomous
>>>>living being ONLY once it is born.  Did *I* make references to a "person"
>>>>in the womb?

>>> Yes, if inadvertently.  Your statement implied "person before and after
>>> birth, autonomous living being after birth".

>> You read that implication into my statement because of YOUR assumptions.
>> Which says something.

> Who's making assumptions?  It is a simple enough matter to reword that
> sentence to make it express the same 'ideas' as the rest of your post.  Why
> didn't you?

Because it wasn't necessary to do so.  The fact that you, in your twisted way,
interpreted my statements, which never once referred to a fetus as a person,
as having done so (presumably to discredit my position and make me seem
inconsistent), tells me much about your manipulative and contortive debating
methods.  Why don't you reproduce the sentence that was so ambiguous for all
to see?  And let the world judge whether my wording was ambiguous or whether
you work from a biased perspective.

>>> Perhaps you ought to use language more precisely in the future.

>>Perhaps.  Perhaps you should read other people's writing without imposing
>>and projecting your own wishes onto it.  Perhaps.

> There's no reason to get defensive about bad wording of a sentence.

Fine.  Show us all the sentence in question, and explain how YOU feel it
could possibly have been misinterpreted.

>> Old habits are hard to change.  Even when there is good reason for it.  This
>> happens a lot when such people have a stake in believing such things about
>> other people.  What stake is there among pro-choicers, especially given your
>> inability to offer a reason to change OUR old habit of denoting human life
>> beginning at birth.

> With slavery, the stake was 'as soon as we recognize blacks as human, a lot
> more people are going to be against slavery and slavery may become illegal'.

Blacks were not recognized as non-human, the law simply made it legal to
own humans as slaves.  That's why the law mentioned nothing about race when
slavery was abolished.  It also stated that no person should be discriminated
against due to race.  It is clear that in neither case had it been assumed
that blacks were not human, at least not in the eyes of the law.

> With abortion, the stake is 'as soon as we recognize fetuses as human, a lot
> more people are going to be against abortion-on-demand and abortion-on-demand
> may become illegal'.

But why do so when they're not?

> By the way, not all pro-choicers denote life as beginning at birth.  I think
> that you will find if you open your eyes that there is more than one group on
> each side of the abortion issue.

So?

>>> There were probably a fair number of slaveholders who actually believed
>>> the stuff they were spouting.  But this did not make slavery right; it was
>>> wrong even though there were people who did not know it was wrong and
>>> who believed that they had a right to hold slaves.

>>But it was wrong not just because we now say it is wrong.  And abortion is
>>not wrong just because you say it is today.

> Conversely, it is not right just because you say it is today.  The fact that
> there are basic human rights issues where doing the right thing is much more
> important than getting everyone to agree that it is the right thing does not
> tell us what the 'right thing' is.  I did not say that it did.

"Human" rights?  All your arguments repeatedly stem from the assumption that
the fetus is an independent human being worthy of the same degree of rights
that we hold for independent human beings.  The burden of proof for that is
still on you.

>>> But if abortion is wrong, does everyone need to believe that it is wrong in
>>> order for it to be wrong?

>> What is your basis for calling it wrong?  If you quote religion, personal
>> preference, non-scientific drivel, if you twist and manipulate, I'd say your
>> basis is vacuous.

> I'm not quoting religion or non-scientific drivel.  As to personal preference,
> the whole idea of human rights is non-scientific.  Both sides in the abortion
> debate use arguments based on rights; if you say that rights are meaningless,
> you shouldn't care which side 'wins'.  As for twisting and manipulating, you
> seem to do an awful lot of that, and not just to my arguments.

To whom?  Where?  You are really a class act, Newton.  Talk about smear
tactics.  I have given more than a few examples where you deliberately left
out sections of my article to distort my position.  Right here in this
article you have repeatedly insisted on the existence of an ambiguously worded
sentence that you claim could be interpreted by a reasonable person to say that
the fetus is a person, yet you have never produced that sentence.  Please
go away if this is the way you intend to argue.

>>>  That is to say, there may be some people who need
>>> to be stopped from performing actions that *they believe* would not harm
>>> other people but which *actually* would harm other people.

>> What other people would be harmed?  Back to the burden of proof being on you.
>> In another article, you said "I don't accept your assumption that the fetus
>> is not a human being".  The burden of proof still rests with you, though you
>> choose to use your assumptions to prove your conclusions in arguments here.

> Unborn children *are* being killed, in great numbers.

Great way to "prove" your argument.  Call the fetuses "unborn children".
Perfect.  I do apologize for making remarks about your style of argument.
Obviously you never engage in manipulative rhetoric.

> The evidence shows that seven-month-old fetuses are human, and yet you
> refuse to acknowledge that fact, choosing instead to say that they're 'close'
> and trying to drop the subject.

The "evidence"?  Can the seven month old fetus live as an independent
autonomous entity the way a newborn infant can?  Then why doesn't it?
If you really believe this to be true, then why force women to endure
nine months of pregnancy?  Obviously you have scientific proof that the
fetus can be removed at seven months and be a full fledged autonomous
human being, so let's remove ALL the fetuses at seven months and save
the women the problems of an additional two months with a fetus inside her.
Ante up.

> Why should your pronouncements be considered 'truth'?  Back to the burden
> of proof being on you.

You're right, it's YOUR pronouncements that should be considered truth.
Scientific evidence?  Who needs it!  We have the truth as interpreted for us
all by Mr. Newton, all knowing, all seeing.

>>> On the contrary, the demarcation point of life is at conception.  You have
>>> the same DNA that you had when you were a fetus.  It determined the color of
>>> your hair and skin, your sex, and various other things.  It organized your
>>> growth from a single cell to an infant to a child to the person you are
>>> today.

>> As someone else pointed out, at conception the zygote still has the potential
>> to split into two different entities.  To say that that is where life begins
>> sounds very foolish in light of that---by the same reasoning, the minute a
>> woman produces an egg, and a man produces a sperm, later "destined" to meet,
>> that could also be termed the demarcation point by your logic.  That is quite
>> silly to me.  Given the erroneousness of claiming that a zygote represents
>> a viable life form, we must use the criteria of real life, that include
>> physical autonomy.

> Grasping at straws.

Anything I say that you can't answer is "grasping at straws"?  How dare I
speak ill of your methods of argument!!

> You are saying "if you are wrong, I must be right".  The impression that I
> got from that article was that we both might be wrong.  But I am willing to
> admit that I might be wrong and listen to the evidence for and against the
> position presented in that article, whereas your reaction to that article was
> to claim "I'm right!  I'm RIGHT!  I'M RIGHT!".  What was that you were saying
> about non-scientific drivel?

OK, since you are wise in the ways of science, and you have (GASP)
admitted that you "might" be wrong (big man!), why not show ANOTHER viable
demarcation point other than conception?  Other than birth, of course,
the reasonable one, because choosing that one would obviously interfere with
your conclusions, and we all know a true scientist works backwards from
desired conclusions.

>>> Come on now, you expect us to believe this?  Even a most rudimentary
>>> examination will show you that mannequins are not living organisms and
>>> do not belong to our species.  Fetuses are living organisms and do belong
>>> to our species.

>> Come on now, you expect us to believe this?  Even a most rudimentary
>> examination will show you that fetuses are not living organisms. (They
>> may belong to our species, but then so do corpses of once living people.
>> Speciation is simply a way of categorizing life forms, in living form or
>> not.)

> It seems to me that we've had this argument before.  Fetuses are biologically
> living organisms.  This is a fact.

As is everything you assert, of course.  Physical autonomy.  Uh... well,
that's not important in this case, but it would interfere with my desired
conclusion.

> There are assumptions behind the various other definitions of living
> (especially behind your version) which may not be valid; if you use other
> definitions, you must also justify their assumptions.

Examine the reasons why a virus is not considered life.  Then think about the
definition of life.  Then explain to us all, carefully, your assumptions,
their assumptions, my assumptions, and let us in on the final result.

>     Aside:  I admit I was wrong about the single definition of living,
>     but by the way you kept saying "The fetus is NOT alive.  It ISN'T!",
>     you didn't seem to be too aware of multiple definitions yourself.

On the contrary, I was at least aware that your definition left out significant
factors solely for the purpose of declaring the fetus "alive" in the sense that
humans are alive as opposed to body parts being "alive", or viruses NOT being
"alive".

>     The point I raised earlier about needing to justify using any other
>     definition than the biological one still remains.

Let me get this straight.  You're saying MY definition is not the accepted
biological one, and YOURS is?

>>>>The fact is they weren't "later" found to be human, they were already known
>>>>to be human; it was foul bigots who in their personal insecurity blame other
>>>>people for their problems who label some people "subhuman".

>>> I'm not labeling fetuses as "subhuman"; you are.  Be careful, or you'll end
>>> up insulting yourself.

>> I am?  You read a lot into my writing.  What possibly could have prompted
>> you to leave out the section in which YOU invoked the word "subhuman"?  What
>> indeed!!

> I don't read a lot into your writing.  It is very clear when you refuse to
> admit that seven-month-old fetuses are human.  What else could you mean by
> calling someone 'close' but 'not human'?

It is always very clear whenever I disagree with you that I am doing whatever
it is you choose to say in order to further your position, isn't it?  The
choice of word "subhuman" is loaded with connotations of contempt, as opposed
to simply saying non-human.  I stated no such contempt for fetuses.  YOU are
the one who deliberately introduced the word in order to make it seem that
I offered such contempt.  The only thing I am showing contempt for right now
is your base and vile argumentative techniques of invoking manipulative
rhetoric, attributing connotative words to me that I never uttered.  This
technique of arguing is rampant among both the religious right and the
anti-abortion movement, as if to say "We know we can't get them using
reason, so let's get them any way we can because we know we're right!"
(e.g., Samuelson with his collagen nonsense:  "But it doesn't say anywhere
that it ISN'T human fetal material, and it COULD BE INTERPRETED as saying
that it is if you choose to interpret it that way...")

> I did not call anyone subhuman.  Are you aware that one of the purposes of
> quotation marks (not the only purpose) is to indicate disbelief?

Then you must not have "disbelieved" that I ever used the word or hinted at
such a connotation.  Why else would you put it in quotes?

>>> Tapeworms, bacteria, etc. don't belong to the species Homo sapiens.  Fetuses
>>> do, and this difference is a major one as far as rights are concerned.

>> Tapeworms and bacteria aren't similar themselves, and since fetuses aren't
>> living in that they are not physically autonomous, I fail to see the point of
>> this line of argument.

> Tapeworms and bacteria are similar in the sense that both can be found in
> the human body.

Wow!  So can fetuses!!!!  Thank you for granting that point.

> The "physical autonomy" argument is bogus; you lost that one when you admitted
> that dialysis patients are human.

This must be a new definition of the word "lost" with which I am totally
unfamiliar.  I take it that whenever I rebut to one of your arguments, and
you fail to respond to it, that means I have lost.  I should learn from that
simply not to answer your articles, that way I'll "win" all the arguments.

>>> The fact that they are living, that they belong to our species, and that it
>>> has already been proven that seven-month-old fetuses can live outside of
>>> their mothers (suggesting that we'll get proofs for younger ages as our
>>> technology advances) SHOULD suggest something to you.  Also note that every
>>> adult who is living today was once a fetus with the same DNA, and that no
>>> adult who lives today was once a cancer, tumor, etc. -- the "fetus=cancer"
>>> argument is BOGUS.

>> The fact that you cannot show them to be living, because you know they are,
>> at the point at which abortion is considered, not capable of physical
>> autonomy, SHOULD suggest something to you.  But you choose to keep ignoring
>> that point.  "Suggesting that we'll get proofs for younger ages"????  I'm
>> not sure what relevance "everyone was once a fetus" has to any argument here.

> Not capable of living outside the mother's body with the help of machines?
> Maybe not with today's machines, but that says nothing about the *fetus*, only
> about our level of technology.  Where's your proof that it's *inherently*
> impossible for a fetus to live outside of its mother's body?  The equivalent
> of your argument a few hundred years ago would have been that 'infants are not
> human because they depend on breast feeding and thus are not autonomous'.

You talk big, but your bark is bigger than your bite.  If you are so sure
of the humanity of the fetus, take fetuses out of the bodies of women who
want abortions and take care of them yourself.  OK?  Are you willing to do
this?  Why not?  Either do this or stifle this longwinded non-motile argument.

> If you read the rest of the sentence that included (roughly) "everyone was
> once a fetus", you would have seen that it was aimed at the "fetus=cancer"
> argument which appeared before and (knowing this net) will probably appear
> again.

So?  You still haven't shown that this is a reason for not allowing abortion.

>>>>Unless you can show how they can exist in a physically autonomous separate
>>>>state from the bodies they inhabit.

>>> This has been shown for seven-month-old and older fetuses.

>> Which is beyond the point at which abortion is considered.

> Are you *that* sure that it won't be shown for younger fetuses?  The trend
> has been to show that fetuses at younger and younger ages can live outside
> the womb; I doubt that medical progress will stop at the trimester border
> as you so obviously hope.

Then do it.  Close your big mouth and take some action, instead of mouthing
off at me.  If you can build artificial wombs where fetuses can grow to
term and eventually be weaned off of and become full fledged human beings
without significant deformities or other problems, then do so.  Or shut it.

>>>The difference between seven-month-old fetuses and six-month-old fetuses is
>>>one of degree, not one of kind.  In fact, if you keep looking back you will
>>>discover that the 'difference of kind' occurs when you cross the boundary of
>>>conception.

>>But since conception is NOT a viable point of demarcation, since few if any
>>of the qualities of independent LIFE are present, we must look to other
>>criterai, which you seem to be unwilling to do.

> It is clear that birth is NOT a viable point of demarcation.

Oh, yes, very clear.  Clear as mud.

> And it is you who seem to be unwilling to look at other criteria, as evidenced
> by the way you reacted to the post suggesting that the demarcation point was
> just after the point where twins can appear.

Which post was that?  And when exactly is that?  Why don't you tell us
precisely why "it is clear that birth is not a viable point of demarcation"?
Solely because it interferes with your desired conclusions?

>>>>>As to the first part of #2, clearly everyone does not agree with you.

>>>>You mean some people are DEMANDING that women remove the fetuses within
>>>>them?  Care to substantiate that?  Or are you referring to "parasitic
>>>>nature"?  Who doesn't agree with that, and why?

>>> What were you saying about twisting words?  I was referring to:
>>>      >>> ...given wht it does to her body, surely her wishes take precedence
>>>      >>> over anything usurping nourishment from her and causing changes to
>>>      >>> her body against her will,

>>Which was the middle of the paragraph, not "the first part of #2".  I don't
>>need any further substantiation of your tactics of argument to form an
>>opinion.  As you said earlier, though, some people feel that other people
>>are "subhuman", and choose not to acknowledge their rights.  Perhaps what
>>you have cited is an example of this.

> It was the "first part" as opposed to the "last part".

Crock.  The first part is at the beginning.  If this is the care with which
you quote sources and refer to words, it's not surprising you reach only the
conclusions you want to reach.

> I probably should have been more precise, but notice that I did quote the
> words which I was referring to when confusion arose.

You mean so you wouldn't be misinterpreted due to your ambiguous phrasing?
Ambiguous doesn't even begin to cover it!

> It is abundantly clear that you don't need substantiation of *anything* to
> form an opinion on *anything*.  In fact, you seem to regard substantiation
> of other people's points as a threat, rather than as an opportunity to learn.

I guess I feel anger towards you for no good reason then, since by your
reasoning I have no reason to feel I have ever been threatened by you.

>>> Notice that I said infants.  What do infants do that deserves punishment?

>>I don't know if you're a parent or not, but infants in most households I'm
>>familiar with don't get to run rampant.  If they do what they're told not
>>to do, they are punished, as part of a means to teach them right from wrong
>>and such.  Of course, as I said above, some parents just smack kids around
>>because they feel like it, because they think it's their right, but that's
>>probably not germane to THIS particular discussion.

> I'm not a parent, but I once was a child and I have a younger sister.
> Generally, if you don't want an infant to drink turpentine, you keep the
> turpentine out of reach of the infant.

And if he find it anyway?  What does any of this have to do with what I said
or the topic at hand?

>>> More word-twisting.  You were not responsible for your OWN conception, but
>>> that says nothing about any conceptions that you cause.

>>But I wasn't responsible for having been born in the first place, so how can
>>you hold me responsible for ANYTHING that follows?  It wasn't my fault,
>>I didn't choose to be born.  That's what you're putting forth as an argument.

> How can I hold you reponsible for ANYTHING that follows?  Very simply.  Once
> you are an adult, you have CONTROL over your own actions and presumably enough
> INTELLIGENCE that you know (or should know) what you are doing.  Before you
> were conceived, you didn't even EXIST, so you couldn't have possibly prevented
> your own conception.  All during the period when you were a fetus, you had
> even less responsibility for your actions than an infant -- did your mother
> ever punish you for kicking her while you were a fetus?  But now that you do
> have control over your actions and are presumably competent to make choices,
> it's appropriate to hold you responsible for the consequences of those
> choices.

And when does such responsibility begin at which punishment is administered,
at which learning is indulged in, AT WHICH AUTONOMY EXISTS??

>>>The fetus doesn't choose to be conceived; two people conceive it.

>>But by your logic above they couldn't be responsible, because they never
>>chose to be born in the first place.

> That's not my logic; it's your twisting of my logic.  Is it your position
> that infants are as responsible for their actions as adults are for theirs?
> If an infant plays with the trigger on a loaded gun and it goes off and kills
> someone, does that make the infant equivalent to a Mafia hitman?  Or does it
> imply that someone was very stupid to leave a loaded gun lying around?

So it all boils down to what I long said it was.  YOU don't like the fact
that people can have sex and choose not to have children, you want them
to be "responsible" for it, like a vindictive abusive parent who makes the
child "pay" for his/her "misdeeds".  Thus, you conclude that abortion is wrong,
a fetus' humanity notwithstanding, because to allow it would be to allow these
people not to "pay" for what you see as their crime.

>>>>Could you have him evicted?  How?  He's not "responsible" for that act,
>>>>obviously he is not of sound mind.  What kind of bogus argument is that?

>>>What am I have supposed to have done that resulted in placing him there?  In
>>>the case of fetuses, the mother and father placed the kid(s) in the mother's
>>>body.  It would be a little bogus for me to place a lunatic inside my head
>>>and then claim a right to have him evicted at the cost of his life.  That's
>>>why I don't place lunatics in my head or even invite them to come live
>>>there.

>>You are responsible for having a head, and taking care of it, making sure it
>>is safe from intrusion by lunatics who want to live in it.  If not, you MUST
>>suffer the consequences.  Is that what you're saying?  Or are we really back
>>to that old religious line "You had sex, you are obliged to 'take
>>responsibility' and have a baby"?  It sure sounds like it, but I can't be
>>sure.

> Both of those 'summaries' are bogus.  Reread my statement carefully.

Funny, that's what I got both re-readings.  Or is there something else you're
trying to say if not this?

>>Fine, then put your money where your mouth is.  Allow a woman the right to
>>remove the fetus that she doesn't want in her body, and bring it to term
>>in the "appropriate environment".  And do with it what you will when it
>>leaves that environment, and becomes an autonomous real life form, a human
>>being.

> It already IS a human being; asserting "It's NOT!  It's NOT!  It's NOT!"
> does not make it otherwise.  When the appropriate environment is in place
> *and* is no more risky for the fetus than the womb, I will support letting
> the parents choose between supporting the fetus in the womb and supporting
> it in this environment.

But for now you insist that the woman hold the fetus inside her?  Why?
And if I hear you claim that I'm doing the asserting one more time...

> Roughly 99% of all abortions are performed to terminate pregnancies that the
> parents could have CHOSEN to avoid.  Some of the remaining abortions are done
> to save the life of the mother, and most pro-lifers do believe in allowing
> abortions to save the life of the mother.  Rape/incest cases comprise a very
> small fraction of all abortions; they are the hardest because *neither* the
> mother or the child could have acted to avoid the pregnancy.  There are many
> pro-choice arguments which have some validity in rape/incest cases but not in
> others, although their proponents intend them to apply to the general case.

To which I say, "So?"  Why is it bad to allow people to choose abortion out
of choice rather than necessity?  If you admit that it is "all right" to
abort in the case of rape/incest, you have no case for claiming that it should
be prohibited in cases where it is done out of choice.

>>Believe what you like, but there's a real world out there.  Part of
>>the prerequisite for life is physical autonomy.

> Yes, there is a real world out there, although you evidently don't want to
> live in it.  I don't accept this 'autonomy' argument with respect to dialysis
> patients and the like; why should I apply a different standard to fetuses?

Because the dialysis patients ARE physically autonomous.  Their respiration
functions, their voluntary nervous systems, their minds, all function
independent of external support.  They have a problem with one particular
function of their bodies for which they need assistance.  I fail to see why
you insist that this makes them non-autonomous, since it doesn't seem to apply
to patients with pacemakers or other artificial devices.  How you can claim
that I "lost" this argument is beyond me.

>>Otherwise, it is analogous to a "virus", which is not considered life
>>because it does not exist as life in an autonomous way.

> More wishful thinking on your part.  Go to school.  Go directly to school.
> Do not pass GO.  Do not collect $200.  When you have learned enough biology
> to distinguish cells and multi-celled organisms from viruses, come back and
> try using more reasonable arguments.

Not to your school, please.  Number of cells is IRRELEVANT to the argument.
The fact remains that the reason viruses are not considered "life" (one
of the reasons) is that it is non-autonomous.

> Does anyone wonder now why I included a sentence debunking the fetus=cancer
> myth?  (I didn't think *anyone* would say that fetus=virus!)

I guess you weren't prepared for it, so you just slough it off with an
assertion.

>>>That's funny.  Not a single pro-lifer disagreed that the fetus is alive.
>>>But I distinctly remember Sophie telling you that you shouldn't resort to
>>>lies to 'prove' your point.

>>It's not surprising that pro-lifers continue in their assumptions.  I haven't
>>heard negative comments from Sophie since the original article in this series
>>that clarified my position.  Perhaps she understands now that I am not
>>telling lies.  Perhaps you choose to think otherwise because ...

> It's not surprising that pro-lifers have not adopted YOUR assumptions, since
> they are extremely bogus.  "Thou shalt believe because it is the word of Rich
> Rosen" sounds an awful lot like religion to me.

When I say something, I support it with some evidence, like the
nature of the definition of life.  When Newton doesn't like this because it
interferes with his conclusions, he dismisses the particular premise that
interfered with his conclusions as unimportant, or wrong (because WHO says
so?), or not worth discussing.  Or "that's just what Rich Rosen said".
As if claiming that it's just me who claims this would make it easier to
dismiss.

>>>Sorry.  The fact that we don't have extremely advanced technology today does
>>>not mean that fetuses aren't human.  Given that I would protect their lives,
>>>and you would not, it is up to you to prove that they are not human.

>>And I proved that they were not living by showing that they cannot live
>>as physically autonomous entities.

> You didn't prove anything.  If you give a second-grade student a test, and
> s/he flunks that test, you *cannot* conclude that all second-grade students
> will flunk that test on the basis of that one trial.

Then put your money where your mouth is or shut up.  I proved my point.  You
just don't like the conclusion, so you'll use any vacuous method to discredit,
to twist, or (as a last resort) to simply ignore the conclusion.  You disgust
me.

>>A point which you skirt at every convenient opportunity, by saying "what
>>about 7-monthers" (not applicable as far as abortion goes in any case) or some
>>other dismissables.

> *You* are the one skirting the issue.  On the issue of seven-month fetuses
> being human, you have clearly lost.

This is a joke, right?  Any time someone disagrees with him and produces
arguments he can't answer, he says "you have clearly lost".  This isn't
an argument.  This isn't even a joke.  This is a waste of time.

> Yet you refuse to admit that you are wrong.

You go first.  Especially since the evidence exists to support my position.

> You claim that they are 'close' but 'not human' (when there is no
> ground for calling them anything but human)

Except for maybe physical autonomy, which you dismiss at whim because it
interferes with your conclusion.

> and try to change the subject at every opportunity.  These tactics are known
> as bad sportsmanship.

I guess that means you're a bad sportsman.  "Cheater" and "liar" are probably
better words.  As is "sore loser".

> As I have mentioned before, the case of seven-month-old fetuses is relevant
> to the case of younger fetuses; the difference between seven-monthers and
> six-monthers is one of degree, not of kind.  So the fact that seven-month-
> fetuses are human does have bearing on the abortion issue because of what it
> implies about younger fetuses.

But you haven't proven their humanness.  Can they survive autonomously?
If you feel so strongly about it, then why subject women to nine months of
pregnancy when only seven are necessary?

>>>>The humane thing is to let tapeworms live, too.  After all, don't they have
>>>>rights, too?

>>> Not very many rights in my eyes.  Whatever species the tapeworm belongs to,
>>> it doesn't have anywhere near the rights of Homo sapiens, or the rights of
>>> chimpanzees for that matter.

>> So let's concentrate on the rights of living human beings.

> That's what I was doing until you started talking about the rights of
> tapeworms.

No, you were talking about the rights of fetuses.  Talk about skirting!!!

>>> the fact that
>>> late-term-fetuses can survive outside of their mother's bodies shows just
>>> how bogus it is to say that birth is the starting point of life.

>> Not at all, it merely says that only at THAT point are we able to simulat
>> the NECESSARY womblike environment to allow the fetus to develop to
>> term and become autonomous.

> What a load!!!  If the machines can simulate the womblike environment, then
> the fetus isn't dependent on the inside of another person's body, now, is it?

No, but you're the one who claimed that dialysis patients aren't human if
we insist (?) on physical autonomy as a criterion for lifehood.  If you
were willing to say that, then surely a fetus left in a complete supportive
womblike environment (more than just dialysis) would surely be non-autonomous.
I keep forgetting though, that you simply throw that criterion out because
you don't like it.

>>>And it raises obvious question:  "if these fetuses are human, what makes
>>>these others not human, if anything?"  I don't see anything sufficient to
>>>call them "subhuman".

>>Your choice of word.  They may qualify as potential homo sapiens once they
>>are born, but since they are not physically autonomous (a necessary
>>prerequisite) and thus not alive, well ...

> You were saying "subhuman" in so many words.  Why not be honest about it?

You are saying that I was saying "subhuman" in so many words, when I wasn't.
Why not be honest about what a base and manipulative propagandist you are?

> They already *are* Homo sapiens; there is nothing "potential" about it (you
> can't squirm out of this one since Homo sapiens is the species name).  The
> "physical autonomy" you keep raving about is clearly *not* a prerequisite
> since we don't require it of dialysis patients.

Since it also doesn't apply to people with artificial hearts, and with good
reason (given earlier in this article).

>>>>If you are seeking "hard proof", why not do what I suggested above:
>>>>remove a fetus from a woman's body during the early part of pregnancy, nd
>>>>do whatever you like to sustain it, and take responsibility for any
>>>>grotesque deformities that occur, causing a barely functioning human at
>>>>"term" (whenever and ifever "term" is, and if indeed it would be human at
>>>>all).

>>>I would not do this to a seven-month-old fetus, even though I know that such
>>>fetuses can survive outside the womb, because the risk to the child outside
>>>the womb is currently greater than the risk to the child inside the womb.  I
>>>suspect that any doctor with a proper sense of ethics would refuse to do
>>>such an experiment if you approached him/her with it.

>>Damn right!  Partially because they know that EVEN for a 7-month fetus (as
>>you admit), and certainly for one that hasn't been around as long, it is
>>less than unlikely that the fetus would not survive into lifehood, and if
>>it did it was likely to be terribly deformed.  Obviously you are making a
>>point for which you know that hard proof is unavailable, then scoffing it
>>off by saying "it's unethical" to get it, thus you win.

> Ethical doctors would also not recommend elective cosmetic surgery in which
> the patient has a 25% chance of dying.  Does this mean that such surgery is
> impossible, especially if it had been used in non-elective cases?  Of course
> not!!  But if the trend in such surgery (performed non-electively) was towards
> making it safer and more widely applicable, it would not be bogus to note this
> trend and suspect that someday the surgery might be performed electively.

I didn't see any point in the last paragraph.  What does this arbitrary
point mean in relation to the subject at hand?  You are evading the fact
that you slough off the inability of the fetus to survive autonomously by
saying "we can never find out because it's unethical".

>>>>I'm not occupying an animal's insides for sustenance.  Furthermore, if I
>>>>was out there seeking my own food from animals, do I have a "right" to do
>>>>this?  Is the animal powerless from stopping me from using it for food?

>>>We raise lots of animals each year to be slaughtered.  And in large part,
>>>they are powerless from stopping people from using them for food.

>>Do they lack "rights" to fight back?  Amazing that we choose cows and sheep
>>to raise, not animals that WOULD fight back.  Wonder why?  Anyway, what is
>>the point you're making?

> You're confusing 'rights' and 'abilities' here:  whether or not the animal
> has the RIGHT to fight back is independent of its ABILITY to fight back.
> You're the one who started off down this tangent.  What is your point?

The point I made at the very beginning:  do I have a "right" to expect
food from animals, or do they have the right to prevent me from using them
as food?  And why, in your opinion, does this not apply to women with fetuses
inside of them?

>>Sorry if this offends you, but when it comes down to it, you are treating
>>human beings differently only because you are a human being, and you do so
>>in self interest.  All those organisms, from an objective sense, have as
>>many rights as you do.  It is only because we value our own species that we
>>agree that certain rights of life be granted to human beings, to allow
>>freedom from interference and harm from others exercising their "freedom"
>>beyond the boundaries of non-interference.  Those rights start with becoming
>>a human being, a physically autonomous life form, and not before.

> So you think that every animal has as many rights as you have.  Why not
> plants?  If you believe that plants and animals have as many rights as you
> do and that non-interference is everything (actually, it's non-attainable,
> since you can't avoid affecting others), why aren't you sitting in a corner
> slowly starving to death?

Remember YOU'RE the one who distinguished between "rights" to fight back
against being used as food and ability to do so.  Why does a fetus have
any more "right" to sustenance than you or I have to food?  Do we have a
"right" to sustenance?

> Could it be possibly that animals and plants don't have as many rights as
> you have?  If so, this little foray has gained you nothing.  Or do you think
> that there are no rights at all?  In this case, you don't have any reason
> to protest *any* outcome to the abortion debate, since all stands have the
> same validity, i.e. none.

Nonsense.  Rights are things "granted" by governments, basically meaning
that the government will not allow interference with your native abilities
(natural rights?) to do these particular things.  In their absence, you
have the "right" to do anything you are capable of doing.  We "grant"
human beings (each other) rights within the limits of non-interference.
We "grant" rights to certain animals (e.g., pets, animals raised as food--
until slaughter, of course).  What rights do fetuses have in this scheme?
Surely they have rights if you assume they are human.  But that's your end
goal, isn't it?

> And as I have mentioned before, everyone does not accept your bogus
> definition of "human being".

Which "bogus" definition is that?  I'd venture that everyone doesn't accept
your bogus definition either.  So?  What then do we base our decisions on?
Popular consensus?  Reasoned analysis?

>>>Your right to control your body ends where the other human being you placed
>>>inside it begins.

>>Again with the assumed conclusion style of argument?  Start again, please,
>>and this time give a reasoned argument.

> The argument
>         Human(FETUS)     + Non_Interference    => Abortion is wrong
> has no more assumptions than the argument
>         not Human(FETUS) + Non_Interference    => Abortion is right

Great, thus I take it you agree with me that abortion is all right since you
can't prove the fetus to be an autonomous human being?  Yes?

> You are asking us to accept "not Human(FETUS)" for reasons that basically
> boil down to "I want not Human(FETUS) to hold" (what other reason could you
> have for applying a different standard to dialysis patients than fetuses?).

The fact that they're different in nature AND in degree by a longshot, perhaps?
What's really clear is that YOU are INSISTING that we accept "Human(FETUS)"
despite all evidence to the contrary, where humanity in the sense we are using
implies independent autonomy.

> Why might you want us to believe "not Human(FETUS)"?  Why, so that we will
> conclude "Abortion is right".

Why might you want us to believe "Human(FETUS)"?  Why, so that we will
conclude "Abortion is wrong".  The difference between us is that I provide
some backing for my position that the fetus cannot function in an autonomous
fashion and thus doesn't qualify as an independent living human being, whilst
you just re-assert, twist my words, and dispose neatly of this point so as
to allow you to reach your desired conclusion.  That simple.

> I find it very interesting that you evade any argument that might cause you
> to conclude HUMAN(X) for any X for which FETUS(X) also holds.  This says a
> lot about who is doing "assumed conclusion"-style arguments.

Perhaps because you have never offered such arguments, whilst I have offered
(repeatedly!) the autonomy factor as support for my argument, which you
blithely ignore.  It sure does say a lot, my friend.  Of course, you could
re-list all your incredible substantive arguments one by one so that I
can "evade" them "again".

>>It's amazing how you have to keep going back to "late-term fetuses outside
>>the womb", when that has no relevance to the abortion argument.  The degree
>>of dialysis support necessary varies from patient to patient.

> Why do I keep going back to that argument?  Because you continue to evade it.
> A simple "I was wrong; logic does lead to the conclusion that seven-month-old
> fetuses are human" will do; instead you continue to illogically maintain that
> seven-month-old fetuses are "not human".

Thomas Newton's definition of logic:  agreement with the statements of Thomas
Newton regardless of whether or not he backs up his position with evidence.

>>>I notice that you have avoided saying outright whether or not a dialysis
>>>patient is human, and have claimed that a late-term fetus is not a human
>>>being even though it can live outside it's mother's body.

>>The dialysis equipment is an external connection to the person's body, it is
>>not that person's entire environment.  And I said this.  And I said that such
>>a patient was human.  So what are you trying to do in this argument now???

> What do you mean by 'entire environment'?  The Shuttle astronauts depend upon
> machines for their oxygen, water, etc. and they are human.  'But they do not
> live there all the time', you might reply.  So what if they did?  It wouldn't
> make them any less human.

We're talking about reproducing an earth-like environment in space, a place
where clearly humans are incapable of living on their own without such
support.  What on earth does this have to do with life on earth?  Are you
next going to drag in scuba equipment necessary to survive underwater?
The earth is the natural environment for humans.  If you are going to throw
in assorted examples having nothing to do with natural environments for
humans, then you are offering non-content examples.  Why might this be?
Am I "evading" again?  Or are you?

> For your information, fetal support equipment does not contain anything like
> a computer to replace the fetus's brain.

Huh?  So?

> What I am trying to get you to do in this argument is to make the entirely
> logical concession that seven-month-old fetuses are human.  Not 'close',
> but 'human', just like the rest of us.

By the definition of logic offered above.

>>> 1) You are evading the question:  Is a dialysis patient human?

>> I already answered that in the affirmative.  Your attempt to make it seem
>> like I haven't to promote your position is typically abominable.

> A source of confusion here is that I read and answered your last post on a
> paragraph by paragraph basis, and you answered the question indirectly in
> response to a later paragraph.

A source of deliberate confusion here is your manipulative rhetoric designed
to make it seem like I didn't answer the original question, like I said
that fetuses were people, etc.  Deliberate and unconscionable.

>>> If your answer is YES, explain why you continue to say that late-term
>>> fetuses are not human, in light of the standards that you set for other
>>> human beings.

>> I answered that above.  And in my last article.  And I refuse to do so again
>> only to see you misquote or leave it out to your own ends.

> All I see are 'points' that could as easily be used to call adults undergoing
> medical treatment "not human".  Taking these away in the name of consistency,
> all that's left is a double standard.

Easily indeed.  If you wish to impose an incorrect double standard where there
is none, in order to make your point.

>>>2) In my response to the paragraph, I did not 'accuse' you of calling any
>>>fetuses human.  True, you earlier referred to fetuses as persons, but that
>>>seems to be a case where you were being inconsistent.

>>This is a lie on top of a further lie.  Do you care to document this?  I
>>thought not.  You ceased long ago to argue reasonably.  I don't see why I
>>should continue.

> Did I say intentionally inconsistent?  Maybe T.C. Wheeler was right when he
> claimed that you have never admitted to any mistakes!!  I think I understand
> the flames about you on various nets a lot better now.

Yet I still have no understanding of you.  What difference does "intentionally
consistent" or not make to your lying?  Did you provide the documentation
asked for?  OF COURSE NOT!!!

>>> I said that you were claiming that late-term-fetuses were "not human".  How
>>>else is one supposed to interpret
>>>    >>> close enough to being a living human being
>>> Again, if you say that dialysis patients are not human, you will have one
>>>hell of a fight on your hands.  If you say that they are human, how can you
>>>possibly justify calling late-term fetuses 'close enough' (which implies
>>>that they are not quite human) rather than acknowledging their humanity?

>>For a change, the implication you got out of this statement is correct.  It
>>is close enough to lifehood so that they can be weaned off of extreme
>>supportive equipment and begin to live as autonomous beings.  "Acknowledging
>>their humanity"?  Give me a break.  Your words don't fit in my mouth.

> Why do you continue to say 'close enough'?  Are not adult humans sometimes to
> be found using extreme supportive equipment?  All I can see is that you don't
> want to concede the point and have started acting in a much more emotional and
> illogical way than you do when an argument is still up in the air.

I don't see your point.  "Concede"?  On what basis?  Recall that humans ARE
autonomous creatures who may need some degree (perhaps extreme) of support.
Can we say the same for fetuses prior to their achieving autonomy?  (We,
not you.)

>>>If dialysis patients are human (and you haven't claimed that they aren't, or
>>>answered my question), HOW can you claim that late-term-fetuses are anything
>>>BUT human, even going by the 'criteria' that you have put into your posts?

>>Because dialysis is one body function among many that requires external
>>support, and because in most cases dialysis treatment is an intermittent
>>affair.

> But it is as critical as any other body function -- if it doesn't work and
> you don't do something about it, you die.  Is a crippled dialysis patient
> less human than one who can walk because the former uses two machines and
> the latter uses only one?  If someone required continuous treatment, would
> that make them not human?

Imagine a totally paralyzed dialysis patient with no brain function and
no independent autonomous circulatory or respiratory functions.  What have
you got?  A virtual corpse.  Now imagine an asthmatic needing respiratory
aid.  See the difference?

> The law says the person is dead when brain death has occurred.  In some
> cases, where people have been in a coma, and the coma is expected to last
> until death, and they are on supportive equipment, courts have allowed
> hospitals/families to remove the supporting equipment in hopes that the
> patient will die.  Note *will die* rather than *because the patient already
> is dead*.  Net.abortion is not the place to discuss this issue in any great
> detail.

Note indeed.  Is it not the place to discuss it because doing so will shed
light on who is doing what type of arguing?  *Will die* because *have lived*.

> So you're insisting that the assumptions behind your definition of life must
> be valid because you have decided to use your definition of life.  A rather
> circular argument, don't you think?

MY definition?  Yes, Thomas, I sat here and made it up without consulting
the base of knowledge of biology.  Poof!  A definition.  Out of thin air.
You believe that, don't you?

> Assertions because faulty evidence proves nothing.  Bogus because the
> fetus is biologically alive, and at least one of the assumptions that
> you use in your definition of 'living' leads to contradictions.

But is it physically autonomous?  Of course not.  You are more than willing
to waive that requirement just as if you were nepotistically getting a job
for a relative.  Why you keep re-asserting that a dialysis patient is less
autonomous than a person with an artificial heart (who is clearly quite
autonomous) is beyond me.

>>> But you have not provided any rational justification
>>>of this position.  "Newton, shut it" is not a rational justification.

>>What follows was.  "Newton, shut it" was just the words of a human being sick
>>and tired of having his words twisted, his position manipulated, etc.

> What's very interesting is that you start complaining about people twisting
> your words and manipulating your position at about the same time you start to
> lose some point of an argument in a big way.  I'm under no delusions of being
> singled out for this treatment.

Now get the feathers.  Again with this new definition of "lose"?  How did
I lose?  By silencing you and putting you in a position where you have nothing
else to say, I thus "lose"?  Why not give some examples of the things you
accuse me of rather making MORE bogus assertions.  Your tactics of argument
are worthy of only the lowest of slime, my friend.

> Can't resist letting go with a final personal attack, can you?  But you
> can't hurt me by them, because I don't value your opinions that highly.

There's only one person whose opinions you seem to value highly.

This time for sure.  My name's been dragged in the mud by this manipulator
one too many times.  I'm sure he will respond with more mudslinging, but
I'll accept that as the last of it, and good riddance.
-- 
"I was walking down the street.  A man came up to me and asked me what was the
 capital of Bolivia.  I hesitated.  Three sailors jumped me.  The next thing I
 knew I was making chicken salad."
"I don't believe that for a minute.  Everyone knows the capital of Bolivia is
 La Paz."				Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr