On May 16, 2005, at 2:51 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'm not arguing for that at all; I'm just suggesting that the test of "viability" is somewhat vague.
I realize that you were arguing somewhat hypothetically concerning my
definition. I was pointing out the result of using two different terms of
viable.
...Underscoring my point. ;)
What I'm pretty sure of is that there's a lot of arbitrary thinking afoot when discussing pregnancy and birth. There are some who contend that life begins at conception, and yet they celebrate birthdays as being *genuine* anniversaries of the beginning of someone's life. That to me is an example of how an arbitrary idea clashes with observable behavior, which suggests at least one intellectual inconsistency.
What inconsistancy? It celebrates an arrival date, not the beginnning of
life.
Not anywhere I've ever been, or indeed even heard of. DOB is used to calculate age in years. If the thinking (conception = life) were truly consistent, DOB would be totally irrelevant for calculating age in years.
That no one has ever in the history of birthdates been feted, at 3 months after emergence, for being one year old simply highlights the inconsistency.
To me abortion is a personal decision. I don't expect it to be an easy
one when we're talking about a fairly anatomically developed fetus, and
I am proximally sure that legislatures need to keep their mitts out of
the oven entirely. We can't even agree, in many cases, on what basic
terms mean, such as "life" or "viability" (or "self-sufficiency", to
look at it another way), and of course there's the elephant in the room
-- what "human" actually means, when it starts, etc.
But, there is a very very simple definition that is being ignored..location
in DNA space defines species. If you use a functional capacity definition,
then you either include adults of other species or exclude a significant
fraction of humans that are now alive. What's wrong with arguing that
humans are those animals that are in the human region of gene space?
We are ever so much more than the sum of our genes. If genes are to be the only measure of what is human and what is not, then the death penalty will have to be abolished, war will have to cease instantly, and no one will ever be able to unplug anyone connected to life support -- because those people all have exactly the same human rights as everyone else.
No, the genetic test is far too facile to work here.
and since laws require either consensus or submission to arbitrarydecisions made byothers, there would be no benefit to be found in illegalizing *any* kindofabortion.
What about civil rights laws that overturned the so called "right of free
association?" There wasn't a consensus on those.
Not sure what you're referring to here.
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
