From: luebeckd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 18:19:18 GMT


In article <lb4486INNm30@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM  
(Eric Marsh) writes:
> In article <1992Sep12.133845.13714@cs.rose-hulman.edu>  
luebeckd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu writes:
> 
> >It has occurred to me that the fundamental debate over abortion is  
really  
> >about whether one says that a pregnant womb contains an unborn, but  
> >living, child or a fetus, which is just tissues.
> 
> >If everyone could know that a womb contains a living unborn child, then  
it  
> >would be obvious that abortion is a form of murder, and few would  
condone  
> >it.
> 
> >On the other hand, if everyone knew that a womb contains only tissues,  
or  
> >some other matter that is not a life, then few would really care if  
> >someone did have an abortion, because there was nothing there in the  
first  
> >place.
> 
> >Nearly all debate on abortion degenerates into this fundamental  
question.
> >Can this question be adequately answered?
> 
> The scientific evidence is available for all to see. The real matter
> at hand is how one interprets the data. I've been debating this issue
> for several years now and during this time I have managed to examine all
> the salient issues and put together a coherant framework that 
> is pro-choice. When debating this issue with pro-lifers, I have
> never seen any arguments put forth that are consistant with the
> scientific facts that support the concept of a z/e/f having the  
attributes
> we value (and generally label as "personhood") sufficiently to bestow
> "rights." 
> 
> In the final analysis, the evidence is there for anyone to examine.
> The real issue is, how well does a given philosophical system deal with
> this, and other evidence? I think that if we all tried to examine
> the questions involved logically, there would be a great many less
> pro-lifers out there. The problem is, most pro-lifers base their
> beliefs on religious systems that are in turn inconsistant with the
> scientific evidence pointing to the nature of the universe. Given
> that these people ultimatly do not have a philosophical system based
> on reality, the evidence, in turn, ultimatly matters little.
> 
> So what do we have here? When you boil it all down, we have a group
> of people that are trying to remove the rights of people based on
> a set of beliefs that do not square with reality.
> 
> Its very human of them, you know?
> 
> Eric

I was rather hoping my question might result in some logical examination  
of the evidence as to just what exists inside the womb of a pregnant  
person. In this forum, I have yet to see any such examination. As I am new  
to this forum, excuse me if this was discussed at length a short time ago,  
but as I read back, I find mostly flames thrown one direction or the  
other, or opinions that are stated as facts that are proven merely because  
the writer says they are so! If I tried this technique in my college  
writing class, their would be more red ink on my paper than black.

Perhaps we will yet have such an examination of evidence.
Or would we all in general rather spend our time calling each other names?
Newsgroups: talk.abortion