From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:32:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.213321.11207@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>
>Well, do you think there exist such things as good and bad interference?
>
>
>Bad interference is something that should not be done.
>Good interference is something that should be done such as doing everything
>possible to bring a _wanted_ child into this world.
>

I see school is back in session.  Lesson 2 to follow.

So, "bad interference is something that should not be done."  In whose
opinion?  Yours?  Mine?  Whose?  You need to elaborate.

Likewise, What does "everything possible" mean?  Everything within the
realm of economics, nature, medicine?  Or just everything the couple
who want said child wish to do?  Who decides?

Who does this "good interference"?  You?  Me?  Who?

>So, are you saying that if a couple wants a child, we should not utilize
>every means available to help them have that child?

*I* say, let them go for it.  *I* personally won't do anything to help
unless they ask, and then I reserve the right to refuse.

I can see that you haven't considered all the options of your question here.
What if a couple comes to you and says "We want to have a baby, but we
have no insurance and can't afford the doctor and hospital bills.  Can you
contribute $1000 toward our expenses?"  What would you do?  Would that
come within the realm of "utilizing every means available to help them
have a child"?  What if they asked for you to donate sperm to father the
child?  Would you refuse?  Do you think you should have the right to refuse?

DEfend your answer.
>
>When did I ever say that I wanted to take away a woman's right to control
>her body?  I'm sorry.  But I am getting sick and tired of people making
>assumptions and displaying their ignorance.  Please, get facts - I beg you.
> Assume nothing about what I may or may not believe!!  

Well, from your arguments, such as they are, about personhood beginning at
conception, one would clearly get the impression that you are against
abortion, as abortion then would be the unwarrented killing of a person--something our society frowns upon and even punishes people for doing.
 
Surely, you would not have us believe that even though you would have
a fertilized egg be a "person" it isn't the same kind of "person" that
I am or my infant son is or any other borned human being.  Are there two
phases of personhood to you?  Why?  Why does one kind of person (the fetus-person) have little or no legal protection when another kind of person (the borned-
person) have all legal protection?  Surely, you must have thought about this
and made some conclusions............
>
>So, what you are saying is that we should be free to kill any born child
>until it passes that line?  By the way, what is that line?  Could you
>please define it clearly...

Well, you DO seem to think that there are two kinds of persons.....hummmmm
Very interesting.  There's a fetus-person, which can be aborted legally
(and therefore killed) and the borned-person, which can't be killed without
due process.  Now, Eric, think.  What is the difference between the two?
Why do you have two different rules for the fetus-persons as you have
for the borned-persons?  Why do you inply that killing a borned-person
is wrong, but clearly state that killing a fetus-person should be legal
(as your previous statement about you not being against abortion asserts)

Or, you made no such implication with your question above?  I inferred
from that question that you disapprove of killing borned children.  Please
correct me if I'm wrong about this.  Also, I inferred that you think
that abortion should be legal.  Please correct me if I'm wrong about this.

Just clarify some things for me so there will be no more implications and
inferences.

Do you support abortion rights?
Please explain what restrictions, if any, you would legislate (or support
legislation) on abortion.
Do you support the current laws concerning terminating the life of
a borned person?
Do you see no inconsistancies with your any of your positions WRT this issue?

Jennifer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion