Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: I was a teenaged pregancy
Message-ID: <5916@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 31-Dec-69 18:59:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbscc.5916
Posted: Wed Dec 31 18:59:59 1969
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Sep-85 04:15:33 EDT
References: <711@gitpyr.UUCP> <390@scirtp.UUCP> <5839@cbscc.UUCP> <740@gitpyr.UUCP> <5853@cbscc.UUCP> <749@gitpyr.UUCP> <5879@cbscc.UUCP> <802@gitpyr.UUCP>
Reply-To: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (unix-Paul Dubuc,x7836,1L244,59472)
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <SCCS>, Columbus
Lines: 201

A response to Myke Reynolds.  I have deleted some of the jumbled quotes.

>It is possible to be unaware yet still be a thinking being, correct? I am in
>favor of laws that protect thinking beings. Do you consider a fetus a
>thinking being? I unjustly accused sas@lanl of being the type the would
>make an analogy between the cattle industry and mass murder if he thought
>it would help his point. It fits you quite well however.. You try to appeal
>to emotional outrage by making analogues between existing people and fetuses.
>And you do it over and over and over.... ad nausium on into the night..

A fetus may not be a thinking human being (according to your definition)
at a particular point in her life.  But neither is the person who is
unaware *at that particular point in her life*.  To you the future state
or potential makes no difference with regard to the fetus.  Why does it
make a difference with regard to the person who is unaware at a certain
point in time?  Why can't the fetus simply be considered "unaware" for
the time being?

>If a fetus had a mind these would be valid points, and abortion would not
>exist because it would be a clearly moral issue. There is not even a nervous
>system at conception. Saying a fetus is not human is a poor way of expressing
>the fact that fetuses are not thinking beings, I agree.. But the point
>is obvious and shouldn't require making.. I wont make it again.

The presence of a nervous system is not conclusive proof that a human being
is a "thinking one".  Anyway, what I am trying to get at is how you define
the line between the protected and unprotected, and why you feel that line
makes a difference.  My point is that I don't think potential is irrelevant
in considering whether or not the fetus is a rightful person.

>>>Your solution is to force the mother to have a child. Bravo. Might I take
>>>a guess at your social status? Middle-middle to upper class aye? Its not
>>>an acceptable solution to you because it doesn't happen to be one of *YOUR*
>>>problems. You can afford to raise a child under any condition or send your
>>>daughter out of the country for an abortion.

>>Don't you think this is a little ad hominem?

>How is pointing out the fact that you will not be among the people hurt by your
>views being carried out a personal attack?

What difference does my social status or the fact that I won't be hurt
personally make as to whether I'm right or wrong?  Would I be right to
say that you shouldn't be pro-choice because your life will never end
in an abortion?  You don't know anything about what I can or can't afford
and it makes no difference one way or the other.  You need to discuss the
argument on its own merit.  Is is wrong to be against racial discrimination
if you're not in a minority?  Do you think that everyone in the lower
"social classes" agrees with you on abortion?  Arguing with things that
have nothing to do with whether or not the person's opinion is right or
wrong is what is meant by and ad hominem argument.

>>>If this were a perfect society I would be the first person to sign the bill
>>>to outlaw abortions, it is far from it however. If there were solutions
>>>there that were almost as good there wouldn't be any abortions!

>>The legality of abortion on demand is one big reason that alternatives
>>to abortion are not more readily available.  A perfect society wouldn't
>>need any laws, would it?  Arguing against a law because society isn't perfect
>>seems a little silly to me.

>Maybe thats because you said it, not me.

Then what did you mean by the >>>'ed quote above?

>There is a problem, a woman is
>pregnant, and for a number of possible reasons she cannot or does not want
>to raise a child. Your solution is to force her to have it and thats that.
>She can't afford to raise a child properly, or she is 15 and has to drop out
>of highschool and be an unwed mother? so what, its not one of your problems,
>she shouldn't have had sex in the first place.

No, I'm willing to help her with alternatives.  My wife and I have personally
done so.  How about you?  If this teenager doesn't want an abortion do you
tell her that it's too bad, she'll have to tough it on her own?  Do you support
both choices, or just abortion?

I don't think that killing the fetal human is an acceptable answer to
the problems.  It may be the easiest answer for many people to give (it
doesn't place any committment to the woman on the one giving it) but I
think where human life is concerned, we ought to resort to other solutions
to problems that don't involve killing.

>>>>What line of demarkation are you imposing?  What is the basis for that line?
>>>>Sentience?  How do you define it and why is it a legitimate dividing line?

>>>I proposed no line of demarcation. It would be completely arbitrary.

>>That is a big problem I have with much of the pro-choice argument.  They
>>tear down one set of criteria for a life/death dividing line and don't feel
>>any obligation to provide a sound one of their own.  Do you have a better,
>>more consistent dividing line than conception?  If so, demonstrate it.

>Who is tearing anything down? I think the one we have now is fine.
>You have to know the right answer to know that someone else's answer is
>flawed? Non sequitur.

No, I wan't to know what your answer *is*.  Why aren't you telling me?
You don't accept conception (that's what you're tearing down) so what's
your line?

>>The genetic pattern in the zygote contains that of *another* individual.
>>The one in the body cell contains that of the individual to which the cell
>>belongs.  The zygote, barring interference, will naturally grow and mature
>>as a human being.

>[minor logistic flame] So all but one of any set of identical fetuses is
>abortable?... Natural is a meaningless qualifier, black widows eat there mates
>after sex. Perfectly "natural". Natural is what ever Mother Nature happened
>upon, and the whole course how human life throughout the ages has been an
>act of conquering nature and making it conform to his idea of a conducive
>world.. Having children when one wants them and not when Mother Nature
>arbitrarily says NOW is a very healthy thing I think.

A body cell is not a fetus or a zygote, is it?  That is where the qualifier
makes the difference.

>>Why don't you answer my
>>question instead of evading it?  I honestly would like to tell me
>>what "social good" really means.  You imply that I should accept what
>>that standard dictates with regard to abortion.  Well, then expounding
>>upon the meaning of that standard is the least you can do.

>Ok, here comes the obvious:

Is this a oblique way of calling me stupid, or what?

>In general, abortions occur in an environment unconducive to the raising of
>children. Either the woman doesn't want a child, she isn't mature enough
>to raise one, the male will not marry her, she cannot afford to properly raise
>a child, etc.. Often a combination of several of these factors and others.

How does the fact that no one "wants" a human being, make that person
any less a human being?  We don't advocate killing children who end up
as wards of the state because no one wants them.

>Scenario(1): Your 15 year old daughter comes home pregnant, the child that
>got her pregnant is not likely to marry her, and she has the future of an
>unwed mother who must drop out of highschool..
>Scenario(2): Your 15 son son gets his sweetheart pregnant. Do you have him
>get married to the girl at 15 and try to raise a family when he should be
>being raise?
>Abortion is not something to be taken lightly, but neither are these
>situations. They happened more then once in my highschool.. They sound like
>extreme cases because of age, but they are the only ones I am personally
>familier with.

How do these scenarios affect the question of whether or not the fetus
is a rightful human being?  A girl may carry the child for term and
get help in raising it and finishing school or she may opt for adoption.
Sure there is plenty of inconvience (much of it attributable to the fact
that abortion is made into such an easy option) but snuffing out a human
life is not an acceptable way to get around such difficulties, I think.
Kid's can also be helped to view sex more responsibly (like saying "No").

>>>I've already said this a few times before, but here goes again:
>>>The life of the living is more important then the potential life of the
>>>non-existent. If you can make the abstraction that a fetus is human, even
>>>though it has none of the features that we consider human, only the knowledge
>>>that it will eventually have them, then the abstraction that an abortion is
>>>just as though the woman hadn't gotten pregnant is equally as valid. If thats
>>>the way you want to look at it, thats fine.

>>What are the features you refer to?  If you don't lay them out then
>>you have little ground from which to criticize.

>A fetus is not cognizant. (you have that deja vu feeling too aye?)

Neither is someone who is sleeping.  If the fact that they will be
at other times matters for them, why does it not matter for the fetus?
Draw your line between killing a human being and abortion for me.  At
what point does the former become the latter?

Yes, this is begining to look like a merry-go-round. If your not going to
make a reasonable attempt at defining the line and telling me where
it occurrs, then I'll be glad to get off.

>>>Nobody is forcing their OPINIONS on you.
>>>It is you who is trying to force a VERY opinionated opinion on
>>>everyone else in the world. Such intellectual vanity is amazing.

>>If I want to kill my neighbor, have more than one wife, own slaves,
>>or rob a bank?  What if I see nothing wrong with doing some of these?
>>Yes, we do force our "opinions" on those who think like this.  If that
>>is not "intelectual vanity" then explain to me the difference.  If you
>>are unwilling to lay out your criteria for what constitutes a rightful
>>human being then you have little cause for calling others vain.

>Yes, society forces generally held moralities on its members. Who would say
>killing your neighbor or owning a slave is a moral thing to do? No one
>sane. Who would say abortion isn't immoral? Quite a lot of people actually.
>About as many, if not more then the number that say the converse.

So is the way we determine what is right to poll people find the majority
opinion and label the dissenters insane.  In the antebellum South you and
I probably wouldn't have passed for being sane.  So was slavery right
at that time and place?  Why is being against slavery the "sane" thing
to believe now?  By what standard do you determine who is sane?
-- 

Paul Dubuc 	cbscc!pmd


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com