From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Geisha Dawn)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: What needs to happen to discuss these issues productively.
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:54:21 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Gordon
>Kevin
>>David
>>>Kevin




>>>>The purpose is to kill the fetus to end pregnancy.

>>>This may be like  "The purpose is to drive the car to get to work".  Do I 
>>>just like to drive or do I want to get to work. An abortion is to end a 
>>>pregnancy. To this end, fetal tissue is killed (yes, it is killed). The 
>>>purpose is *not* to kill the fetal tissue.

>>There is only one way to end pregnancy.  

>Actually there are a couple: one is abortion, another is live birth.

Both require the removal (passive or active) of the fetus.  So, there is
one way to end pregnancy.

However, my statement is in itself vague.  Point taken.

>>                                         To end pregnancy, one must
>>kill the fetus.  Killing the fetus ends pregnancy.  Abortion kills the
>>fetus.  Fetal death ends pregnancy.  

>You're repeating yourself.  To get out of a locked burning room I will
>have to break down the door.  Is my purpose in leaving the building to 
>break down the door?  No, my purpose is to get out of the room.  Breaking 
>the door is a side-effect of my leaving the room.

What I am laying down is the difference between the purpose FOR and abortion
and the purpose OF an abortion.  The purpose FOR abortion is to end pregnancy.
The purpose OF an abortion is to kill the fetus.  This is what I was
trying to convey.


>>>Imagine "Hmm, I'm prenant, I think I'll go kill some fetal tissue."

>>One does not decide to kill a fetus outright when she is pregnant.  If
>>the decision is that the fetus is unwanted, she has an abortion.  Abortion
>>kills the fetus.  Abortion kills fetal tissue.

>That is currently the side-effect of abortion, but it is not the main
>focus or point of an abortion.  The main desire is to NOT BE PREGNANT
>anymore.

Right, the purpose *FOR*.


>>Larry fails to make distinctions between human beings in the genetic and moral
>>senses.  SOmething prevents him from realizing their are differences and
>>that most philosophers and proponents accept.  A fetus may not be a human
>>being in the moral sense, but it is a human being genetic.
>
>Well, personally I think a fetus is a _human_ being, just not a person.

I feel as such too.

>I
>don't understand how philosophers, who take such pride in their ability to
>think ("I think, therefore I am"), feel, empathize, theorize, etc, can 
>indentify with a fetus that doesn't even have the capacity to know it 
>is alive.

Well, that is why most of them label the fetus as a non-person.  However,
they definitely recognize it as a human being.  If they don't think it
is a human being, the DO recognize that it is human.  That is irrefutable.


>>>>Bodily autonomy does not allow the body to incur damage to itself.

>Ever hear of tissue rejection?

In a transplant?  That is foreign material to the body.  That is not of the
same body.  Therefore, tissue rejection in a transplant is resultant of
a negative feedback process in the bosy where the body attacks foreign object,
as it interprets foreign tissue as invading bacteria/virus/etc.  Hence, the
body is preserving itself from an "invasion".

>>>Wanna bet? What is shock? Stupid thing your body does that'll kill you. There
>>>are lots of examples of things your body does to kill you.
>>
>>Shock is bodily preservation!!!!!!  If no one tends to a shock victim, he
>>eventually dies!!  Shock stops all blood flow to unnecessary organs to
>>route the blood to the brain!!  TO keep the brain alive!!!  The most vital
>>integration center of the body!!  Shock causes the body to shiver to keep
>>up body temperature!!  Shock does not kill the body.
>
>I understand your point.  But, shock will result in the death of the body.

Sure, if unattended.  The body would die much sooner w/o shock, nonetheless.
Shock is a safety value in the hopes that the body can repair itself or
until external conditions are comfortable.

>Why do you think the siren goes on in an ambulance the second shock is
>detected in an accident victim?  Why don't they teach "shock inducement" in
>first-aid classes?  I know it's the body attempting to preserve itself,
>but it will shortly result in the death of the body.

I agree; however, it is bodily preservation -- it's intention.
The long-trm affect of shock is death if unattended.



>That's 'polls', but even so I'm sure the pro-choice crowd can produce a
>few polls of their own.  My point is you can't claim *absolutely* that 60%
>(or whatever) of the nation support anti-abortion laws when you haven't
>really spoken to even 25% of the nation.  Look at what the polls showed
>about Jerry Brown - they didn't give him a chance of winning *one* state
>and he's mamaged to win a couple.  That completely blew away the polls.

Of course.  I realize that a few polls have a range of error and are usually
inaccurate, but they serve as a basis for general opinion.  Your statements
are correct, however.

>At best, polls are an indication of how *some* people responded to certain
>questions.

Yes.

>The wording of the questions is very important.  Like I've
>said elsewhere, look at the turnout at abortion rights and anti-abortion
>campaigns.  It seems there is at least a 3 to 1 advantage to pro-choice.

But what were the limitations on abortion in that poll?  Were they 3:1 on
unrestricted abortion?  Rape/incest/death abortion?  1st tri?

Being a 3:1 pro choice says that a pro-choice side is favored.  But what
are the limitations of this 3:1 poll?

>Gordon

kcw



--
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Kevin Welch | Penn Pro-Life   | Spread your conscience overseas:
| kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu   | We are agents of the Free.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion