From: egorr@cie.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: Re: Personhood and interference
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 00:55:04 GMT

In article <#w+p++#.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes ...
>>In article <b__pfzr.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes ...
>>> >In article <07!p7m_.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>
>>
>>As stated, this case is must to general for me to comment on.  Please
>>fill in more detail about why a certain couple would not want the child.
>
>Why?  So you can give your blessing or condemnation from on high?

Nope.  The reason is so that you can see the application of my theories.

>Either personhood starts at conception or it doesn't.  How many rules
>about "interference" and "good interference" and "bad interference" and
>splitting persons and the like are you going to make trying to shore
>up this creaky premise?

Person hood starts at conception...I've never changed that in the
slightest.

>>You talk about expensive (at the moment) procedures, completly ignoring the
>>fact that they will always not be so expensive.  As technology advances,
>>things become cheaper because ways are found to do thing easier....
>
>And you are completely ignoring the fact that merely because something
>gets cheaper, doesn't mean it _ever_ gets cheap.

False.  You are not looking far enough ahead, or far back enough.  
Remember, specifically, we are talking about medical technology, not
things like art, etc...
>
>>>   You can't make babies without 
>>> sperm, egg, and a place to put them.
>>
>>And...so what's your point...?
>
>Many couples are infertile because tha man doesn't produce enough healthy
>sperm, the women has blocked tubes, the women's uterus can't support a
>fetus, health problems in the mother, etc.

And, what's your point?  I still don't understand what you are getting
at...

>
>
>You got THAT right.
>
>>> >> >Many adults in a coma are like this also.  Would it be ok to kill them?
>>> >> 
>>> >> Such adults are not infringing on any one other person.  Further, in many
>>> >> cases such adults _are_ allowed to die.
>>> >
>>> >Sure they are.  Someone has to take care of them if they are kept alive and
>>> >are therefore infringing on some other person.
>>> >
>>> >But not in all cases...the critical point.
>>> 
>>> One important difference is that _everyone_ talking care of such a person
>>> is doing so _voluntarily_.
>>
>>I am not certain how to respond....could you please explain your point more
>>clearly so that I can respond correctly.  thanx...
>
>A woman who can not get an abortion is forced to carry the child herself.
>She cannot surrender the pregnancy to someone else.  Pregnancy is involuntary.
>People caring for a person in a coma are doing so of their free wills.  They
>are even getting paid for it.  If any one of them gets tired of doing it,
>they can just quit.
>
>Clear?

Bascially, the problem here is that you are denying the medical advances
that would eliminate the problem for the women. 

If you feel this kind of response is not valid, please explain.
 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion