Attila wrote:

On 13 Jan 2005 15:57:00 -0800, "wp123"

<WILLIAM_Potter123@hotmail.com>

in alt.abortion with message-id
<1105660620.401062.88820@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:

Birth is not the point when an individual comes into
existence.

Yes, it is.

No it's not.

The common law is inconsistent. It ascribes the
right to life to any "reasonable creature in being".(Because
murder - the actus reus - is defined as the killing of any
such creature).

Answered elsewhere.

In your dreams.

Except, of course, there is no right to life. If there is please

give

me an exact reference as to where it can be found. Not a

reference

to

it, but the exact and detailed right itself.

It implied by the existence of the offence of murder.

No. Rights are spelled out in law and enforced by law. Otherwise
they do not exist.

So when the Jews were killed at no rights were infringed?

It also denies it to the unborn. The two
positions are only consistent on the supposition that the
human being (the "reasonable creature") does not "fully"
exist until birth.

Which is exactly the case, except there is not 'partially' human

being

therefore there is no need to use the word 'fully.


There is no human being at all before birth. There is a human

being

after birth.

But the creature in utero is a "reasonable creature", and that's the
definition of human being.

Perhaps in your world but not in mine. Your 'definition' is

rejected.

If it's that simple all I need say is: I reject your rejection.

That was the thinking in the 17th
century, the period to which we owe Coke and Blackstone's
definition of common law murder.

As ontologically incoherent as the idea of "an existing
something which does not quite exist" is, it made a
semblance of sense in the 17th century, which is the period
to which we can trace back the thinking of the Roe v Wade
court. The biology of that period has long been superceded.

Totally irrelevant. Beyond establishing what species is involved
(human, cog, cat, cow, goat, whatever) biology is not involved.

This

is purely a social question and is totally controlled by the

wishes

of

the society in question.

I have yet to meet anyone who can tell me what is meant by the claim
that such and such is "purely a social question". Don't waste
everyone's time with meaningless talk

What speed limit is in effect is a social question. At what age
someone can drink is a social question.

A social question is a condition or requirement recognized by and
defined by society. There are thousands of examples. Property
ownership, citizenship, tax laws, and a million other things.

You recognize is to acknowledge was is alreay there. To define is to
create. You can't create what's already there. Therefore you answer is
incoherent.

We now know that the fetus and the new born infant are the
same entity.

Which, even if true, is irrelevant.

So it's irrelevant that YOU were once a zygote and that if it had

been

aborted your mother would have killed YOU?

I was once a zygote, and if that zygote had been aborted I would

never

have existed. Just as any person who was never born alive never
existed.

If you were a zygote then you existed before birth whether aborted or
not.

Not some pre-cursor or
"reproductive process entity", but YOU. The same entity you are.

Absolutely, since I am a unique combination of genes and environment.

A combination which came into existence at conception.

It is not that the latter came into existence
gradually over 9 months, with the finishing touch coming at
birth. There are no degrees of existing. The thing exists or
it doesn't.

Correct. At one instant an adult does not exist and the next it
does, by virtue of a chronological point being reached. At one
instant a person cannot vote and at the next it can.

At one instant a person does not exist and at the next it does.

Indeed. But the point at which a being with the potential for

thought

comes into existence is when the chromosomes from the gametes fuse

into

a new organism.

Who cares?

Anyone who wants to determine when a human being comes into existence.

From the first moment of its existence
(conception) the thing fully was a human being.

No.

Yes, because the new born is fully a human being, and that entity

arose

at conception.

Every human being is fully a human being.

No fetus is a human being.

In that case no adult is a human being either, since the fetus and the
adult are the same entity.

It did not
have two legs, arms, eyes etc. to begin with, but it was
fully a human being.

No. There are no degrees of human being.

Or will you say that amputees are not
fully human beings? Or will you say that someone on a heart
lung machine does not have an "independent existence", and
is therefore not a human being.

Once born alive a human being exists until death. All other

factors

are irrelevant.

Why?

Because society has defined it this way.

Defined what what way?

It is not inconceivable that science discovers a way of reversing
the biological clock. Suppose a "mad scientist" took a 4 year old

and

reversed his development to what it was 1 month prior to birth.

Not possible. This would require too many physical changes.

I will discuss it after it happens and not before.

The inability to think beyond the actual to the hypothetical is a sign
of low intelligence.

According to you that entity would be a human being but the

identical

entity prior to birth was not a human being. Is that the kind of

inane

law you want? That's exactly the mentality that gave us the Dred

Scott

case.

The Dred Scott decision was legal and correct.

Bingo. You would have defended slavery!

A legal definition of personhood divorced from the nature of the
entity in question. It creates whole swaths of humanity to whom

human

rights are denied - as per slaverly in the US and the Nazi genocide

in

Germany.

Wrong. It was never legal to kill slaves or Jews.

So, if it had been you would have supported it too (along with
slavery)?

You are no different to them. You are simply the urbane facade
of monstrous evil.

And you are a desperate and unskilled twister of words in a desperate
attempt to cover your lack of facts.

I don't know what you mean by "twisted". As long as its compatible with
"true", who cares?

There is no 'deserve' but only 'qualification'.

Cows are born too, you know.

But cows have no rights.

Which shows how unimportant birth is.

No, it just shows society does not give rights to cows. That's

all.

And all you have shown is that society does not give rights to the
unborn and that you don't care whether it should.

Actually I do care. It should not.

No you don't. Your legalistic thinking says that "Rights are spelled
out in law and enforced by law. Otherwise they do not exist". In other
words, for you there is no question beyond "Is it legal?". You don't
also go on to say "It may be legal, but should it be?".

Or rather, you are inconsistent. You say it should be legal, until you
are driven into a corner. Then you retreat behind specious legal
tautologies like "Rights are spelled out in law. Otherwise they do not
exist". Once the assailant is gone you emerge from your cocoon with
confidence intact, totally oblivious to the inconsistency between your
legalistic amoralism and self-righteousness.