From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In defense of the supposedly indefensible
Date: 7 Oct 92 21:42:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NRL

In article <25983@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (RON BENSE)
writes:

>In talk.abortion,PSL@nrl.navy.mil writes:

>>In article <25894@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
>>writes:
>>>



Ron  - I have incorrectly tried to argue that assigning "value"  to a  fetus is
not a moral stance.  I agree that it is a judgment call and therefore a matter
of opinion.  HOWEVER, this was not the point I was trying to make.  In an
attempt to find some common ground I feel reasonably certain that the
"morality" we are calling upon is the same, namely "though shall not kill". 
The issue is, does that apply to a fetus - you say no, I say yes.

There are two points to be made:

1) Even though I have not yet done so, I feel it can be shown that the baby and
fetus are ONE IN THE SAME.  I think this can be done using reasoning that is
both  scientifically sound and based on common sense.  So it is not that I am
trying to apply the same value to "A" and "B", rather, "A" IS  "B".

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). 
The fetus can take on two vastly different "states"  soley based upon the
mother's attitude.  In one case the doctor and society bring to bear all the
life saving actions at their disposal, in the other the fetus winds up in the
trash.  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.  Your
view, I think, is that the ONLY criterion is that of the pregnant woman.

>..... so my question to you
>is since we both agree that we should err on the side of cautioun (I
>assume you are, anyway) why should we value an entity which is questionably
>human over a woman who is undeniably human? I say that to err on the
>side of caution would be to allow the woman to decide.

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)


>>>Before this time, the fetus can't live on its own, so the case is moot.
>		       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>This is an example of what I consider a "subset" of the factors which
determine
>>personhood.  Living on one's own is not a sufficient criterion for personhood
>>and visa versa.
>
>But not living off someone else as a literal parasite is. Show me one
>person who is living off the blood, nutrients, and bodily functions
>of another, directly, and inhabiting their body. I think you'll find
>exactly none.

This doesn't address the issue.  A "parasitic" relationship is not the
definition of a non-human.  Even if I could find a dozen such  "persons" it
wouldn't prove MY side either.  Besides its irrelevant - the mother gets to
choose no matter what.



>Contrary to your opinion, I believe the pro-life position is one of
>"wishful thinking and blissful ignorance" with "wishful" and "blissful"
>taking on extended connotations.

If you are "connoting" a religious based position, you are wrong in my case as
well as many others I know.

The following refers to the possiblity of the existance of the "perfect"
contraceptive and its effect on limiting a womans discretion.

>>I think you might want to reconsider the last statement.  You are willing to
>>take away a womens discretion (choice) based upon technology. Namely you are
>>not giving her the right to change her mind after willfully conceiving a
child.
>> This is an interesting middle ground.
>
>I said we can discuss it. I didn't summarily give you permission to
>do with it what you wish. There is a difference there, you know.

Fair enough

Paul