From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 22:20:04 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov wrote (in article <1992Sep10.150225.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov>):
>I'm a pro-life Christian, but I did a lot of thinking about the topic before
>I took my and.  What finally made it clear to me was this:

[ example deleted, where he indicates that he doesn't think a "deadline"
  can be set for an abortion ]

>Then I decided that abortion is wrong.

A 9th-month fetus may not be very different from an 8th-month 30th-day
fetus which may not be very different from an 8th-month 29th-day
fetus, and so forth down to conception, but a fetus at nine months is
radically different from a fetus at 2 months.  At some point you've
got to draw the line.  Myself, I draw the line at the nervous system:
when it appears that the brain and nervous system of the fetus is
sufficiently developed so as to let the fetus experience pain, then I
think abortion is wrong.  That happens at 8 weeks, I believe, so a
woman considering an abortion has plenty of time to think it over.

>Choice?  We all have a choice before we have sex.

Sadly, this isn't true.  What if a boyfriend rapes his girlfriend
(date rape)?  What if a father molests his fifteen-year-old daughter?
What if a girl gets herself so drunk she doesn't know what's going on?
Or what if she has a lot of misconceptions about sex (if I take a
shower in the morning, I won't get pregnant)?

>Do I or don't I, and, if I do, am I going to take precautions or not?

Some of the very fundamentalist Christian groups are fighting to ban
abortion AND contraceptives, and even to restrict sexual education,
saying it has no place in schools.  I think these people are SERIOUSLY
out of touch with reality, but that doesn't change the fact that many
women just don't have contraceptives available to them.

>Am I willing to accept responsibility
>if the precautions are not 100% effective (since none of them are)?  So what
>happens when the precautions don't work?

A lot of people consider abortion to be a responsible way to deal with
an unwanted pregnancy -- a lot more responsible than bringing another
unwanted child into the world.

>Eight years ago my wife accidently 
>got pregnant with our third child.  We really couldn't afford it, life was
>very pleasant with our other two, I was already maxed out on available time.

... but you decided to have the baby, and it worked out wonderfully
for you.  If you were a bit poorer, and you were barely scraping by on
your paycheck, and you and your wife both had to work, would you have
been as receptive to the idea of a new baby?

Which would you have preferred: to have the choice between aborting or
keeping the baby, as you did, or to have the government tell you that
your wife would be sentenced to a jail term if she aborted the fetus?
If you were forced to bear the baby to term, don't you think you would
have felt a little resentment?

>Choice?  Abortion is a choice of one or two grown people--the unborn baby is
>given no choice.  That little human is literally ripped apart or burned to 
>death in a horribly painful procedure.

The fetus in its early stages of development resembles a fish,
complete with gills and tail.  And, before its nervous system has
developed, there can't possibly be any pain (or even consciousness) in
the fetus.

>Imagine having your head torn off!  No wonder abortion is a bloody procedure.

This brings to mind typical pro-life propaganda: Look at how gruesome
it is!  Truth is, _any_ sort of medical operation is usually gruesome
to the uninitiated.  "Put an end to heart transplants!  Look at how
disgusting they are!"

Besides, most of the blood is from the mother's womb, I'll bet.

I've recently heard of a pro-life TV commercial that shows off aborted
fetuses.  That reminds me a lot of Saddam Hussein's tactics of showing
off dead bodies on television and blaming them on the Americans: in
each case, the images are meant to disgust you.

>There.  I tried to give my reasoning for being pro-life without going into the
>Biblical side of it.  If you research it with an open mind, you'll find the 
>Bible (therefore God) solidly pro-life.  If you need any help, let me know.

The pro-life side appears to have two points to its argument:

  - An unborn baby is still a human being!
  - It's wrong to murder a human being!

I take issue with the first point: there is a stage in the development
of a fetus (which I take to be the formation of the nervous system)
before which the fetus is only so much biological tissue.

Given this, the second point is weakened.  Sure, I'd love to see every
mother want to bring her baby to term and raise it in a loving
environment!  But the truth is that this won't always be the case.
And given all the reasons that a woman may have to not want a baby (it
will ruin her financially, she's the victim of rape or incest, she'll
have to leave her school or job, she's not emotionally mature enough
to handle a child yet, she doesn't want her body turned into a baby
factory for three-quarters of a year, &c.), it seems pointless to
protect something which is arguably not even a person yet.  Especially
when most of the outcry seems to be coming from a religious
point-of-view -- and this is America, after all; we enjoy a separation
of church and state.

Perhaps it's best summed up by a pro-choice bumper sticker: "If you
can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a baby?"

     << Brian >>

-- 
_/_/_/       Brian Kendig  Macintosh Jedi           Live never to be ashamed
 _/_/   Starfleet Captain  Oracle Employee         if anything you do or say
  _/  Intrepid Adventurer  Saturn SL2 Owner    is published around the world
      bskendig@netcom.com  Wizard of Frobozz    -- even if what is published
    Princeton '92! BSE/CS  Writer/Actor/Singer                   is not true.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion