From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Rational Discussion (Re: In defense of the supposedly indefensible)
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:13:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NRL

In article <26143@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
writes:
>In talk.abortion, lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
>
>Paul, at this point, I suggest you archive all posts, as will I.

Agreed!

>..So far this seems to be a rather intellectual
>discussion, so I'll attempt to keep it that way and leave out the flames.
>(Note many dropping this thread now:)

Yes, nothing can top the lure of a fire.


>I see where you are coming from, but my stance is sort of defined by
>you shall not subjugate another against their will. This is more directly
>to the point of my view as it applies to this issue.

Its hard for us to argue on an even plane from this stance.  To me the conflict
is between two equal entities - Mother vs Child.  Subjugation implies superior
over inferior.  Furthermore, I'll admit that even if you were to agree that an
unborn and born fetus are equivalent there is still much room for argument over
who takes priority in certain Solomon like situations.

>>2) You have already shown some ambiguity in that you both accept a pregnant
>>woman's desire to save a premature infant as well as a different pregnant
>>womans desire for a late term abortion for any reason (despite its rarity).
>
>How is this ambiguent wrt my postion? My position is to support the
>woman's choice to not be pregnant.

Ambiguous in the sense that your discussion re: status of fetus as human seems
totally irrelevant to your ultimate conclusion of `mother's choice no matter
what'.  Why bother to express an opinion on the personhood of a fetus if it
doesn't bear on your reasoning?  
>

>>....  This position is in some respects consistant but it throws away all of
>>the other pro-choice arguments, ( fetus not a person, fetus a parasite, fetus
>>can't feel  or display nerve activity, etc) since they are irrelavent. ...
>
>These are not my arguments. They are the counter-arguments raised against
>the arguments made by anti-abortion people who wish to show that the
>fetus is indeed a person.

But again; who cares if its a person or not, to use your reasoning?

 
>
>>Just the opposite!  The penalty for a mistake in one direction is the loss of
a
>>life. This does not apply to erring on the woman's side (assuming pregnancy 
>>is not life threatening to the mother)
>
>We need to sort out a few other things here.

[..Your explanation of why the potential for a cell to develope to a human
being is not sufficient for equating that cell with a human being]

In this explanation you mention the possible use of cloning human cells - maybe
even the possibility of having these cloned cells develope into a human being. 
I understand that the intent was to smoothy associate  a cell from human skin,
for instance, with the initial cell of the developing embryo, but I'm sorry I
have a lot of trouble with this extention.  The deliberate act of initiating
the gestation cycle, whether natural or artificial, carries with it extreme
ethical responsibilities.  I feel this in by no means a logical extention of
your reasoning but rather a cataclysmic and *irreversable* occurance.


You were arguing that the fetus-mother relationship is unlike any other, and
therefore deserves special consideration.  And asked for counterexamples. 

>>definition of a non-human.  Even if I could find a dozen such  "persons" it
>>wouldn't prove MY side either.
>
>No, but it would refute my point if you could even point out a single
>one.

Inseperable Siamese twins come very close this relationship.  I think, however,
that it doesn't refute your main point anyway.  Since you have characterized
the "parasite" argument as being merely a refutation of some incorrect pro-life
statements.  Your main point still stands - its only the mothers prounouncement
that counts.
>
>>If you are "connoting" a religious based position, you are wrong in my case
as
>>well as many others I know.
>
>I was. I don't really know any pro-lifers, with the exception of you
>possibly, that don't have their beliefs ultimately based on what their
>religion tells them. If so, I'd be interested in hearing those reasons.

Could you stomach attending a Feminists For Life meeting?  I can probably
arrange it.

  Paul
Newsgroups: talk.abortion