Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site gcc-bill.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!dual!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!gcc-bill!bird
From: bird@gcc-bill.ARPA (Brian Wells)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: I was a teenaged pregancy
Message-ID: <316@gcc-bill.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 16-Sep-85 13:09:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: gcc-bill.316
Posted: Mon Sep 16 13:09:05 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Sep-85 07:30:30 EDT
References: <711@gitpyr.UUCP> <390@scirtp.UUCP> <5839@cbscc.UUCP> <740@gitpyr.UUCP> <5853@cbscc.UUCP> <749@gitpyr.UUCP>
Reply-To: bird@gcc-bill.UUCP (Brian Wells)
Distribution: net
Organization: General Computer Company, Cambridge Ma (Home of the HyperDrive)
Lines: 56

I am responding to some of Myke Reynolds' points in a conversation with
Paul Dubuc.

In article <749@gitpyr.UUCP> myke@gitpyr.UUCP (Myke Reynolds) writes:
>>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 certainly wouldn't be sentience..
>A case could be made for it being after birth. It would be completely arbitrary.
>What I was arguing is where it shouldn't be, at conception. That one celled
>animal contains the genetic pattern of an individual, so do most of the cells
>in your body...which leads to...

	Which leads to what?  Your skin cells do not develop into new human
beings.  A fertilized egg, barring complications in pregnancy, will always
form a new human being.  Sure you could argue a line of demarcation at birth
but I don't think it is a firm and immovable as a line at conception.  And I
would be glad to go in depth with you via mail, or here if people are 
interested.

>>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 forcing women to have unwanted children and women
>dying of improperly preformed abortions is a service to sociaty?
>
>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

	What do you mean by this statement?  My daughter was born six weeks
early and she certainly looks human.  According to all the classes and books
I have had, she has looked human for a few months now even though she has
been in the womb.  If you had something else in mind, please explain.

>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. 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.
>-- 
>Myke Reynolds

	I agree that the life of the mother is more important than that of
the unborn.  But I would only use this statement in a life or death situation
for the mother, not just to justify abortions in general.  Most abortions do
not meet this circumstance, so I oppose them.  

								Brian Wells
________________________________________________________________________________

James 1:5
________________________________________________________________________________


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com