From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, dictator, decides limits of religious freedom.
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 18:57:21 GMT

In <14DEC92.21004172@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>In a previous article, chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) wrote:
>>In <11DEC92.05351754@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>
>>Throughout our recent exchanges, I've been trying to get an
>>answer to a single question. It's a fairly complicated question,
>>though, and I don't think that I've done a good job of
>>communicating my intent to you.
>> 
>>[...]
>>
>>My point is that when you say "It's wrong to kill a zygote
>>because it's a person", all you're really saying is "It's
>>wrong to kill a zygote because it's wrong to kill a zygote."
>>What I've been trying to do is to get you to expand on that.
>>_Why_ is a zygote a person? What criteria do _you_, _yourself_ 
>>use to tell whether it is wrong to kill something or not?

>Except, I wasn't defining "person" as "that which it is wrong to kill".  I was 
>(perhaps incorrectly) using person synonomously with human being.

This is some kind of cruel joke, isn't it? You're just going to
say "It's wrong to kill a fetus because it's a person because
it's a human being because it's wrong to kill it because it's
a fetus," over and over again, while I frantically try to find
a re-phrasing of my question that you'll be able to understand.

Here's my latest attempt. I've reworded it as a 3-parter. Enjoy:
   1) What quality do human beings possess that makes it wrong to
      kill them?
   2) Do any human beings lack this quality? (This would imply that
      it's not wrong to kill them.)
   3) If my answers to the first two questions turn out to be
      different from your answers, do you have any kind of rational
      argument that might convince me that your answers are better 
      than mine?

>>[On 14-year-old rape victims not being allowed to have abortions.]
>>
>>Do you really believe this?

>Yes, I do.  Are you going to tell me that all rape victims have abortions?  If 
>not, are you saying that the ones who don't always hate the child?  I submit 
>that is is possible for someone to love such a child.

OK. Under current law, some pregnant rape victims have abortions,
and some don't. All other things being equal, the ones that want
abortions, have abortions. The ones that don't want abortions,
don't have abortions. That seems fair.

You, on the other hand, want to change the law so that none of
them would be allowed to have abortions. This would undoubtedly 
cause a certain amount of suffering.

Now, it seems to me that if you intentionally cause someone to
suffer, you ought to be prepared to defend your action to that 
person. I mean, it's the responsible thing to do, isn't it?

Suppose that someone were to punch you in the mouth, and you
didn't think they had a good reason. If you asked for an 
explanation, would you be satisfied if the answer was: "Some
people like being punched in the mouth." or "I had to punch
you in the mouth, because you're a person, and people have to
get punched in the mouth.", or "I have studied neither law nor 
sociology. This seems like a question more suited for misc.legal."?

They don't seem to be very good reasons, do they?

>>[...]
>>
>>And, of course, I'm still a bit hazy on the difference between
>>the "future happiness" of a zygote, and the "future happiness"
>>of an unfertilized egg. 

>An unfertalized egg, on it's own, left in it's environment, will not grow into 
>a human adult.  A fertalized egg will.

Well, let's see...

An unfertilized egg has a few different environments. It starts its
life in the ovaries, and later migrates through the fallopian tubes
and into the uterus. Now, the interesting thing about the uterus
is that it sometimes has sperm cells in it. Therefore, an unfertilized
egg, on its own, left in its environment, can in fact grow into a
human adult. It's not 100% certain, but it isn't 100% certain that
a given fetus will survive to adulthood either.

Now, I suppose there's a slight possibility that you're going to 
argue about the meaning of the phrase "on it's own". You could say
that the egg _ISN'T_ "on it's own", because it's receiving assistance
from a woman and a sperm cell, but the fetus _IS_ "on it's own", 
because it's only receiving assistance from the woman.

I certainly hope that you're not going to make that argument, because
it would leave you open to (doubtlessly undeserved) accusations of 
misogyny.  Do you see why?
-- 

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
===========================================================
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy