From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 03:00:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.203052.4629@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.013224.14982@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
>kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>> 
>> The point you are trying to argue is that "at conception, a person exists".
>> 
>> Please explain why, IYO, "at conception, a person exists".
>
>It is the start of the process that will result in a newborn child if 
>nothing interferes with it's development.

This statement is not correct.  1/2 to 2/3rds of all z/e/f's fail to implaint.

>
>Before the the moment of conception, nothing exists that could be
>considered a person.  The reason for this is because left seperated,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Um, I would certainly think that the *WOMAN* the z/e/f is about to possibly
implant in could be considered?  Do you disagree?  Why?

>the egg or sperm will _never_ develop into a human child.
                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^

Why "human child"?  Why not "person"?

>
>What I mean by interference is anything that would prevent the fetus
>from being born and where no cases where euthanasia would be permissable
>occur.  

This statement doesn't make any sense.  Why does "interference" only include
those things that would "prevent the fetus from being born"?

>
>I also think that there exists both good and bad interference.  

So, tell me something.  Was Hurricane Andrew "good" or "bad" interference?
Was Mount St. Helens "good" or "bad" interference?  Is a miscarriage "good"
or "bad" interference?

>
>An example of bad interference would be anything that prevents the fetus
>from being born and where cases occur which would result in euthanasia
>being permissable.

So if a pregnant woman gets struck by lightning, and has a miscarriage, that's
"bad interference"?  I think I see your point here...

>
>An example of good interference would be anything that makes it possible
>for the fetus to be born without any cases occuring where euthanasia would
>be permissable.

So if a pregnant woman doesn't want to be pregnant, we can strap her down to
a table for nine months, force feed her lots of vitamins, etc etc etc, and
that "good interference"?  I think I see your point here...

>
>I believe I've followed your ground rules.  If you feel that I haven't
>met your conditions, please let me know.  If you have any questions about
>what I've said, please ask them.  You are free to show me why any of my
>defintions are useless, unclear or not understandable, etc...

Well, you haven't explained why "at conception, a person exists".  You've
done a lot of hand waving about "interference" and "good" and "bad" things,
but that's about it.

>
>-----
>(Please also note, that I have a low tolerance for flame messages and if
>sarcasam (sp?) is used, I will *always* ask you to explain what you are
>trying to say in clear terms without it and not respond until it is done)

Maybe you should ask Kevin about joining his net.cop group. (This last line
is the only sarcasm I've used in this post.  Ignore it.)
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
= "I warned Larry about such intellectually dishonest posting."               =
=    -- Peter Nyikos in article <nyikos.717105984@milo.math.scarolina.edu>    =
Newsgroups: talk.abortion