From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another failure to communicate, involving Adrienne [Was: I had an abortion two days ago]
Date: 29 Sep 1992 07:35:13 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <nyikos.717711689@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1a082pINN5n8@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Sep25.191920.16436@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>Yours don't have to, unless you provide them cause.  I don't know of anybody
>>who is stepping into *your* life and attempting to make decisions for *you*,
>>though, please, correct me if I'm off base here.
>But your kind stepped into his life before he was born, as in the
>Opinion of the Court in RvW.  And if he is too old to have been 
>directly affected by that, other decisions were made potentially
>affecting his prenatal life long before RvW.

Then where's he typing from?  If "my kind" (that *couldn't* be ad hominem from
our learned professor, could it?) have stepped into his life prior to his
birth, I think he's got a story for the National Enquirer.

>>The fact of the matter is that MANY people have some idea of how many
>>kids they will have.  Some have that many, some have more and some have
>>fewer.  That one fetus was aborted, while another fetus spontaneously
>>aborted doesn't seem all that terribly tragic to me:  it's the way hte
>>human animal works. 
>Does it make a difference to Adrienne whether she dies a natural death
>or someone kills her? 

Does this have any relevance to the abortion debate?  

>> Fetuses *are* renewable in most cases, after all.
>Behold what Martin meant by dehumanization.

Excuse, please, but are you contending that (1) fetuses are *not* renewable?
Or (2) that their renewability makes them non-human?  I don't see your point.

>Fetuses are no more interchangeable than you and I.  (I said that once
>before, but that was over two months ago when no one knew me.)

I didn't say fetuses are interchangeable, I said they are renewable.  And
we know you said it before, when no one knew you, but I'm not sure knowing
you has aged the saying any better.  Maybe another couple decades in the
wine cellar.

A woman who has been pregnant can LIKELY get pregnant again.  Karen was
feeling bad that she didn't have a child to hold.  I simply offered her the
consolation that she will LIKELY have a child to hold at another date.  A
different child, true.  But I don't think it's place in the time line
renders it inferior in any way.  

And any fetus conceived today precludes the 8 other options that WOULD have
possibly occurred but were precluded by the conception of this one.  None
of them are necessarily superior or inferior.  And if you lose one -- as
happens in over 50% of cases NATURALLY, you are likely able to conceive
another.

>>I dunno about you, Martin, but I'd rather see my children thrive than 
>>fail.
>And if it looks like they will fail...


Why, Peter, what a gem!  What a responsible, adult kinda thing to say.
What a sensible argument!  What a *useful* approach!  What a purposeful
debating technique!  Boy or boy, I'd save this one!  It really cuts to
the heart of the question of abortion, yep, it shore do!  So masterfully
dealing with the issues!  

We all admire you.

(that's your cue, folks.)

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: talk.abortion