From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: What needs to happen to discuss these issues productively.
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:09:21 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<72685@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch) said:
>David
>>Kevin
>>>Larry Magnolia writes
>
>>>>Wrong - it is purposeful; the purpose is to terminate the pregnancy.
>
>>>The purpose is to kill the fetus to end pregnancy.
>
>>This may be like  "The purpose is to drive the car to get to work".  Do I 
>>just like to drive or do I want to get to work. An abortion is to end a 
>>pregnancy. To this end, fetal tissue is killed (yes, it is killed). The 
>>purpose is *not* to kill the fetal tissue.
>
>There is only one way to end pregnancy.  

Actually there are a couple: one is abortion, another is live birth.

>                                         To end pregnancy, one must
>kill the fetus.  Killing the fetus ends pregnancy.  Abortion kills the
>fetus.  Fetal death ends pregnancy.  

You're repeating yourself.  To get out of a locked burning room I will
have to break down the door.  Is my purpose in leaving the building to 
break down the door?  No, my purpose is to get out of the room.  Breaking 
the door is a side-effect of my leaving the room.

>                                                  Abortion has the
>purpose of killing the fetus.

Currently, the only method of early term abortion is killing the fetus. 
In a very simplistic way you are right, one of the steps to purposefully
abort a pregnancy is killing the fetal tissue.  That doesn't mean the
guiding principle and focus behind abortion is killing the fetus.  When
medical science develops a way to preserve a fetus from an early term
abortion and still end the pregnancy for the woman, then I would expect
you'd see a lot more women choose this option.  The procedure will still
be called 'abortion' because it's 'aborting' the pregnancy.

>>Imagine "Hmm, I'm prenant, I think I'll go kill some fetal tissue."
>
>One does not decide to kill a fetus outright when she is pregnant.  If
>the decision is that the fetus is unwanted, she has an abortion.  Abortion
>kills the fetus.  Abortion kills fetal tissue.

That is currently the side-effect of abortion, but it is not the main
focus or point of an abortion.  The main desire is to NOT BE PREGNANT
anymore.

>The cause, or intention, is to kill the fetus.  When the fetus dies, pregnancy
>in this case ends.  The direct course of action is to kill the fetus since
>there is only one way to end pregnancy unnaturally.  

Yes, that is the course of action taken to end a pregnancy, but it is 
not the purpose.

>                                                     The termination
>of pregnancy results from fetal death.  Termination of pregnancy is the side
>effect of fetal death.  Pregnancy is directly related and dependent upon
>the presence of a fetus.  A woman cannot be pregnant without a fetus.  To
>have an abortion kills the fetus.  The side effect is the termination of 
>preg.

That's like saying the side effect of me breaking down the door is that I
got out of the burning building.  You would claim that my purpose of leaving 
the building was to break down the door.  Now I would be more than happy 
if the door was unlocked and I could just walk out, but locked or not, 
I want out of the burning building.

>Larry fails to make distinctions between human beings in the genetic and moral
>senses.  SOmething prevents him from realizing their are differences and
>that most philosophers and proponents accept.  A fetus may not be a human
>being in the moral sense, but it is a human being genetic.

Well, personally I think a fetus is a _human_ being, just not a person.  I
don't understand how philosophers, who take such pride in their ability to
think ("I think, therefore I am"), feel, empathize, theorize, etc, can 
indentify with a fetus that doesn't even have the capacity to know it 
is alive.

...

>>You only assert a human  fetus is a human being.
>
>I assert that it is a human being in the GENETIC sense.

OK.

>>>Bodily autonomy does not allow the body to incur damage to itself.

Ever hear of tissue rejection?

>>Wanna bet? What is shock? Stupid thing your body does that'll kill you. There
>>are lots of examples of things your body does to kill you.
>
>Shock is bodily preservation!!!!!!  If no one tends to a shock victim, he
>eventually dies!!  Shock stops all blood flow to unnecessary organs to
>route the blood to the brain!!  TO keep the brain alive!!!  The most vital
>integration center of the body!!  Shock causes the body to shiver to keep
>up body temperature!!  Shock does not kill the body.

I understand your point.  But, shock will result in the death of the body.
Why do you think the siren goes on in an ambulance the second shock is
detected in an accident victim?  Why don't they teach "shock inducement" in
first-aid classes?  I know it's the body attempting to preserve itself,
but it will shortly result in the death of the body.

...

>>>>Society thinks that abortion should be legal.
>
>>>What percentage, Larry?  I have numbers, do you?
>
>>Post them, and their source.
>
>Well...Debate I went to Z Kate Michelman and Susan Smith (big timers)
>stated that 60% of the nation thinks abortion should be limited
>to rape, incest, life in danger.  ANother stat I have simply says that
>a "majority" of Americans reject Roe and its allowances.  Boston Globe.

This qualifies as 'hearsay', Kevin.

>No major poles, but I know where to find them...I will get stats.

That's 'polls', but even so I'm sure the pro-choice crowd can produce a
few polls of their own.  My point is you can't claim *absolutely* that 60%
(or whatever) of the nation support anti-abortion laws when you haven't
really spoken to even 25% of the nation.  Look at what the polls showed
about Jerry Brown - they didn't give him a chance of winning *one* state
and he's mamaged to win a couple.  That completely blew away the polls.

At best, polls are an indication of how *some* people responded to certain
questions.  The wording of the questions is very important.  Like I've
said elsewhere, look at the turnout at abortion rights and anti-abortion
campaigns.  It seems there is at least a 3 to 1 advantage to pro-choice.

>>Do you attempt to insult people as some sort of rite of passage?
>
>No, I just wish people would take time out to answer my rebuttals.  If someone
>makes a claim I think is stupid or outrageous, I will add a dumb comment.

Seems fair, we do all do it too.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn proud of it.
-- 

The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.