Defining Human (was fetal tissue)

Reilly Jones (
Wed, 4 Mar 1998 13:57:03 -0500

Arjen Kamphuis wrote 3/4/98: <Maybe we all should [avoid discussing
abortion] but I'm curious as to the logic behind this viewpoint (and mutual
understanding often prevent further conflict).>

Understanding can only proceed after definitions are agreed on. So the
logic is that on core definitional issues, such as what is human and what
is less than human, choices are made prior to mutual understanding. Reason
takes a back seat to values in such a choice. Values can be chosen with
the aid of reason in the form of past consequences of various options, yet
reason itself cannot make the choice. Hence my comment to Max about "whose
rationality?" It's a very old problem. Yet even Jane Roe changed her
mind, so anyone can.

Because the choice of who is human and who is less than human - the old
slavery issue - is so absolute, so stark in its consequences, friendships
can and have been lost, even within families. It is a civil war issue
because the logic embedded within the culture of death demands that
everyone, not just a jurisdiction here and there, but everyone partake in
it. If death is the means by rule and not exception to implement the good
- abortion, assisted suicide, euthanasia, execution, genocide, etc. - then
no competing jurisdictions can be allowed to show the subject population an
alternative which would uphold the values of promoting and enhancing life.
The comparisons between the pathology of societies within the culture of
death and the health and vitality of societies within the culture of life
are too stark and cannot be allowed.

As we slip closer and closer to a world governemnt of some sort or another,
there will be no place on earth left to move to in order to escape the
culture of death. The impetus towards world government is from oligarchs
concerned most of all with world demographics, the UN Cairo Depopulation
Conference made that abundantly clear. They must impose abortion, etc. on
everyone, there must be no alternative to the global unity they envision.
As I have previously written, there is no compromise or accommodation
possible between extropic worldviews and entropic worldviews. The entropic
worldview spreading globally today is primarily an urban, moneyed
phenomenon. I like Spengler's word for it, "unfertility." It happens
sooner or later everywhere urbanization develops. Having children is
simply viewed as too expensive, inconvenient, or pointless. Defining the
unborn child away, the developing self, is a sleight of hand to get away
with murder. Death, whether via barbaric nihilism or via tyrannical order,
takes center stage and remains there, crowding out all alternatives.

<Now you are forcing your definition of what a human being is on us.>

The reality is just the opposite, you and your fellow travelers have forced
it on us. We can't find a jurisdiction to escape it. In response to this
absolutism, we must organize and fight. This is memetic selection in

<A 2 week old fetus is not a person in my book, it has the potential of
becoming a person.>

And your book has been forced on us. A 2 week old fetus is a developing
person, just as an 80 year old is a developing person.

<I don't claim to know what the definition of a human is but I'm pretty
you and I are human.>

I do know. It is different than yours, whether you know what yours is or
not, yet yours has been forced on us, to the great detriment of society in
the quarter century since Roe v. Wade.

<I fully realize this is a mess from a philosophical standpoint, but then,
so is real life.>

My real life isn't a mess, I certainly can't speak for yours. Nor is this
a mess from my philosophical standpoint, but I see clearly that it is from
your philosophical standpoint.

<It seems to be broadly accepted (in Europe anyway) and makes for a
_workable_ rule.>

Europe is always at least a generation farther down the slope than America.
And workable for who, the slaughtered innocents, the victims of Europe's
genteel holocaust?

James Rogers wrote 3/3/98 (and Mr. Kamphuis chimed in on the same point):
<What 50% are digital systems missing? Digital systems have the same
resolution/perception capability as analog systems within the limits of the
noise floor (which affects analog systems as well). There is nothing
analog that can not be represented digitally within the limits of the
analog system. There are well known methods for reading and storing
arbitrary precision analog values with digital devices as primitive as a
1-bit signal converters.>

"Within the limits of the noise floor" is a cute way of pretending that the
noise floor doesn't count, yet half of reality is hidden away there.
Analog systems are affected by noise floor, yes, they don't pretend it
away. "Represented digitally with the limits of the analog system" is
another cute way of saying that the representation of reality is good
enough, yet half of reality goes unrepresented. "Reading and storing
arbitrary precision analog values with digital devices" is another cute way
of saying that arbitrary precision is good enough for government work. Why
settle for arbitrary precision, which cannot be precise enough for
consciousness to work, why not go for all of reality?

Arjen Kamphuis wrote 3/3/98: <I don't think comparing womans clinics to
nazi-death camps is appropriate.>

The very large 'right to life' worldwide movement routinely refers to the
on-going tragedy of mothers murdering their unborn children as the
"holocaust." If you are unaware of this, you must get your news from the
orthodox media which does its best to delegitimize opposition to the
culture of death. "In lieu of stake and faggots, there is the great
silence." - Oswald Spengler

<Certain people on this list might get extremely upset.>

At least they survived their mother's pregnancy to enjoy being upset.

<From the perspective of the fetus it is irrelevant whether it is a pig or
a human, up to a point. And somewhere before this point abortion becomes
illegal. The fetus now has the status of human with all the usual rights

Not in America. In America, abortion is legal on demand right through nine
months, in fact, right up to having the baby 2/3 out of the birth canal on
its due date. No legislative process was involved in this, no consensus,
no will of the people, just top-down imposed death worship by five
unelected judges, stripping all sovereign rights that individual states
constitutionally have in this matter.

<As long as you keep clouding the issue by calling abortion 'murder' this
is not going anywhere.>

I am clarifying the issue, not clouding it. You are clouding it by
pretending that a developing person is not a developing person so that
murder can be legitimized.

RJ: <Are you saying that the possession of intelligence is the source of

AK: <The ability to have Intelligence & consiousness.>

And who determines whether ability is there or not, at what threshold of
ability? Which individuals grant us our rights? Can I talk to them?

<All consious beings should be treated with respect whether they are
humans, dolphins or computers.>

Why should I? Who says so?

<IN many other countries there is and there is a _very_ clear distiction
between an aborted fetus and human excrement.>

An echo of a conscience, perhaps?

RJ: <What's wrong with cannabilism?>

AK: <Nothing (did you see 'Alive'). The problem is the killing part, not
eating part.>

On behalf of civilization, let me say "Ick!"

<...a baby gains certain rights beyond a specific number of weeks after
conception. This is not perfect from an ethical viewpoint, but it is

Again, workable for who? The unborn baby?

Reilly Jones | Philosophy of Technology: | The rational, moral and political relations
| between 'How we create' and 'Why we create'