Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site gitpyr.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!gatech!gitpyr!myke From: myke@gitpyr.UUCP (Myke Reynolds) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: I was a teenaged pregancy Message-ID: <802@gitpyr.UUCP> Date: Mon, 16-Sep-85 23:16:45 EDT Article-I.D.: gitpyr.802 Posted: Mon Sep 16 23:16:45 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 18-Sep-85 05:39:46 EDT References: <711@gitpyr.UUCP> <390@scirtp.UUCP> <5839@cbscc.UUCP> <740@gitpyr.UUCP> <5853@cbscc.UUCP> <749@gitpyr.UUCP> <5879@cbscc.UUCP> Reply-To: myke@gitpyr.UUCP (Myke Reynolds) Followup-To: Jane you ignorant slut Distribution: net Organization: School of ICS, Georgia Tech Lines: 148 Summary: point counter point pmd@cbscc.UUCP (unix-Paul Dubuc) writes: >>Human life has value, but a fetus is not a human life, it is the potential >>of a human life. [me] >Why isn't it human life with potential? And why is that potential >not important in considering whether or not we ought to be able to >kill that life? [1] >>>In what sense would you never have existed? Abortion is not done on >>>an non-existent human. [2] >>Clashing definitions; I don't mean biological existence, I mean cognative >>existence. [me] >OK. How do you define and measure cognitive existence so as to avoid >committing what we would normally call murder of another human being? [2] >How do you justify directly interfering in >the life of the fetus and killing it and not also be providing justification >for someone else to do the same with other humans based on the same general >criteria? [3] >>>If we can kill people instantly and painlessly so that they "never knew what >>>hit them", is the killing then justified? Your argument seemed to imply that >>>since the fetus may not realize she is being killed, it is therefore >>>acceptable to kill her. Why just the fetus? [4] >>Poor analogy, being unaware does not make one non-cognizant. [me] >Why not? They seem to mean pretty much the same thing to me. What real >difference does it make regarding the analogy? [5] >My solution is what I said >it is. Yes, I'm in favor of laws requiring people not to kill other people. >Aren't you? [6] 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.. 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. > >>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? >>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. 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. >>>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. >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. >>>I don't believe your concept of "social good" is as clear to everyone >>>as it seems to you. It seems rather murky and vague to me. How do you >>>support the value or your own life vis-a-vis the fetus with the concept >>>of "social good"? >>Ok, you tell me how [a] forcing women to have unwanted children and [b] women >>dying of improperly preformed abortions is a service to society? >I am not in favor of seeing any women die from any abortion. Your >insinuation that that is the only conceivable or acceptable alternative >to legalized abortion on demand is fatuous. You are quite correct in this respect, and I insinuated nothing of the kind. Perhaps the A and B will help.... >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: 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. 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. >>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?) >>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. There you go making analogies calling MacDonalds a mass murder again... -- Myke Reynolds Office of Telecommunications and Networking Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!myke "Too bad all the people that know how to run this country are busy cutting hair and driving taxi cabs." -George Burns Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com