Organization: Alphabetical
Date: Thursday, 9 Apr 1992 15:38:35 EDT
From: Joy Haftel <JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
 <1992Apr08.185851.8689@sdd.hp.com> <92099.172424JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1992Apr09.153722.11293@sdd.hp.com>

In article <1992Apr09.153722.11293@sdd.hp.com>, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com
(Adrienne Regard) says:

>In article <92099.172424JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu> Joy Haftel
><JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu>
>writes:
>>In article <1992Apr08.185851.8689@sdd.hp.com>, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com
>>(Adrienne Regard) says:
>>>In article <92099.011358JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu> JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy
>>>Haftel)
>>>writes:
>>>>But the end result is the same (death) for the fetus or child.

>>>Well, Joy, this is the basic problem I have in dealing with "potential"
>>>lives in this particular argument.

I am not talking about "potential lives".  I am talking about real lives.
Unless you wish to argue that a fetus is not alive?

>>Life is a dying process, yes.  But obviously there is some reason to
>>stay alive, or people wouldn't try so hard to do that, and laws wouldn't
>>exist to protect people from unprovoked death at the hands of another.
>>Therefore, we see it as good to delay death for a long time.

>Joy, the life/death dichotomy doesn't get us much of anywhere, that's all
>I'm saying.  Sure, I'm alive, and I'm happy to stay that way, thanks (which
>I believe has more to do with the conscious impulses in my brain than
>anything else.  "lower" animals rely on an instinct they developed that

The question I am asking myself and all of you, is this:  Is it better to
be alive or dead, and why?

I think it is better to be alive.
Some people I have talked to think it is better to be dead.
(Both I and the people I talked to are Christians)

>I don't think it's OBVIOUS that it is better to have one cow that lives 10
>years than 10 cows that live 1 year.  On a limited planet, with limited
>resources, we sometimes make that kind of choice.   I think women are in-
>volved in that kind of choice WRT their families every day of their lives.
>It's not 'magic' that so many women DON'T get pregnant, after all.  It's
>quite often a very *conscious* decision.

>I happen to think these *reasons* are much more valuable than accidents
>of nature.

>>Now, a fetus is human (our species) and alive, but at such an early
>>stage of development that it is invisible and totally dependent on
>>another person.
>So?

So, the life of the fetus depends on the conscious choice of another
person.

>>>The end result of an egg that doesn't meet a sperm is also death.
>>An egg is not a full genetic human.
>So?

So, the death here is not the result of a conscious choice.

>>>The end result of a fertiziled egg that doesn't implant is also death.
>>This cannot be helped.
>So?

So the death here is not the result of a conscious choice.

>>>The end result of a born child riding in a car without a seatbelt that
>>>has a head on collision at 60 MPH is also death.
>>This can probably be helped, but for argument's sake it can't.
>So?

So the death here is not the result of a conscious choice.
(In fact it may be the conscious choice to not put the seatbelt on that
child, but I don't think we are talking about that).

>I'm not being flippant, Joy.  I am asking you what DIFFERENCE it makes
>that a fetus has a full compliment of DNA and an egg doesn't, that
>MANY fertilized (therefore "full genetic human")eggs DON'T implant, and
>that people die in accidents.

It's the difference between accident and premeditation.

>What DIFFERENCE does this make to the woman who happens to have excellent
>reasons *not* to be pregnant?   Why do your responses above *mean* anything?
>Why should they be considered by women to be important things?

If the woman has excellent reasons not to be pregnant (and there are many,
as I posted in my article replying to Ron Bense), then it is legal for
her to have an abortion.  This does not change the fact that *she is taking
an innocent human life*.  In some cases of abortion, like war, it is
necessary to have one, but it is no less a tragedy and it is more reason to
prevent another in the future.

[I asked why is a fetus expendable and a newborn not]
>>(I think you'll say it has something to do with the woman who
>>carries the fetus in her body.  But let us assume this child would
>>be a newborn who requires frequent nursing and constant attention)

>Let's not.  I think there is an intensely important difference between
>a fetus within a woman's body, and a newborn in any condition.  And that
>difference is a woman.  Let us not "conveniently" exclude the woman from
>our argument in order to make things "easier".  She is the one who has
>to pay for our convenient argument.....

I purposely didn't exclude the woman, Adrienne, because your argument
about the invisible woman (while repetitive at times) has made a great
impression on me.  However, that does not alter the fact that women are
in most cases the primary caregivers for children and that they alone
can nurse children (and in some places this is the only way to feed new-
borns and is often healthier for the baby than bottle feeding).  The
case I set up exists.  Let us assume the pregnancy poses little risk to
the woman's health.  Why is the fetus expendable and the newborn not?

Joy Haftel               "Such tricks hath strong imagination,
JKH107@PSUVM              That, if it would but apprehend some joy,
                          It comprehends some bringer of that joy."
                                    --Shakespeare
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity