From: parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 10 Jan 93 00:36:42 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:

>In article <C0CqD4.5t5@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:

>|> I have to smile, that was very cute.  Unfortunately, it fails because the
>|> unborn (especially those that are at a point in development where abortions
>|> are not uncommon) are *not* "people". You see,I am a person; Mark Cochran is
>|> a person; you are a person.  How can you tell?  Because we are having this
>|> silly argument, that's how.  Only people are capable of such things.  Non-
>|> people are not.  The unborn are not capable of anything even close to an
>|> argument,or any other conversation or meaningful communication, and thus are
>|> not people.  The unborn are not capable of deciding for themselves as they can
>|> not even comprehend what is taking place.

>Talk about failing logic.  If a man kills his wife while she is asleep, is he
>not guilty of murder because she was not able to debate the issue with him?  If
>I kill a Frenchman, am I not guilty of murder because he couldn't speak English
>to meaningfully communicate with me?

"I'll explain it to you, and I'll use small words so you'll be sure to
understand, you hideous, vomitous mass."  --Wesley, _The Princess Bride_

I did not say they had to be able to communicate with *you* specifically.
(Darn I used some big words in there, I hope you managed to wade through them.)
The unborn are not capable of communicating with *anyone*, not even each other.
Nor have every been, at any point in the past.

>                                      If a person were comatose, and the doctor
>knew for certain that she would revive in nine months, would it not be
>unethical to disconnect her from the respirator, regardless of the expense or
>whether her family wanted her or not?

If you expect them to pay the expense anyway, you must give them the choice.
If you would allow them to step out of their obligation to pay for it then
you could mandate that the doctor must try to keep her alive at society's
expense (not at the doctor's expense, or the hospital's).

>                                       I submit to you that an X week old fetus
>is capable of reacting negatively to painful stimuli, and is thus capable of
>communication regarding it.

Reflex reaction to stimuli is not communication.  Try again.  Perhaps I
should qualify it as *intelligent* communication.  I thought that much would
be obvious, but it has apparently eluded you.

>                             And since when do only people's lives deserve
>respect?  If I run a live cat through a wood chipper, I'm breaking the law
>against cruelty to animals.

There is a difference between whether or not you can "do" something, and how
you go about "doing" it.  There is a difference between causing needless
suffering in a living creature (which, yes, deserves *some* respect) and
regretably causing *some* suffering because it is necessary to end its life.
(for whatever "good" reason there is)

>|> There is also a difference between chosing to abort an unborn child inside you
>|> and chosing to abort an unborn child somewhere else, but I don't expect you
>|> to grasp that concept either.

>Try me.  What is the difference from the child's perspective?  Human history
>has a long and glorious tradition of advocacy on behalf of the defenseless.

>-- 
>// John Townsend             "I thought I was      Legal Conversion Engineering
>// Mead Data Central          wrong once, but         johnt@skibum.meaddata.com
>// 8891 Gander Creek Dr.      I was mistaken."         ...!uunet!meaddata!johnt
>// Miamisburg, OH  45342            8-}                          (513) 865-7250 
That's right, you were mistaken many times.    ;)

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.men,alt.dads-rights