From: franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETYdir
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 01:26:38 GMT

In <17741@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>In <17715@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>>
>>>In talk.abortion, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>>>In <1992Apr7.062635.4717@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.E

>Here are some questions.

>1)Prove, logically and without resorting to religious dogma, that the
>parasitic life form created by conception is a human being in any sense
>other than genetic before the eigth week, seventh month, or birth.
>(obviously, if you can prove it at 8 weeks, there is no reason to prove
>the rest)
   This can never be proven. However, it can't be disproven either. Therefore
we are not justified to judge. There is obviously an intangible realm
here and until all of humanity agrees on the inaminate status of the fetus
we have no right to take it's/his/her life. 

>2)If, conception begins life, why are we not gods, since the sperm and
>egg are not life forms (per welch)? Are we not creating life from dead
>things (those that are not alive must be dead).
   Huh? We do not CREATE the life as you envision it. We have little
say in it's final state. The sperm and egg and children and sex are all
gifts that evolution/God has chosen to give us. We are the mercy
of his will, not the other way around. 
   THis is pretty hard to argue because we could vary GREATLY on a 
philosophical and religious level. This is a matter of faith, not concept.

>2a)If you disagree with the premise that the sperm and egg are not alive,
>then why not force sperm to mate with every possible egg, since failure
>to do so would end a life. As for that matter, why not prevent their
>joining since that would destroy two lives to form a single life?
   Each human has his/her (damn double gender talk is annoying) own
limit on how many children they can handle. If they can't handle any more
then they must show DISCIPLINE in their sex with their spouse (in 
the Catholic's beliefs anyways... I'm not telling YOU how to do things,
but how WE do things)
   Mating every sperm with every egg is a physiological impossibity. 
Forcing conception artificially is also improper in the Christian
church...

>3)With the expected failure to answer question 1), why should there be any
>problem with terminating the parasitic life form in the uterus? [realize
>that a zygote/embryo/fetus qualifies in every way as a parasite, taking
>sustenance from the host and defecating in the host, without providing
>any benefits, and gradually weakening the host, with death possible
>before expulsion]
   No failure. Does that mean I can skip this question? For the sustenance
that it "steals" as you so imply, it should return it a billion fold
as a gift to the mother and father as a child. Clealy this is the flaw 
in society, because an unwanted child is not a physiological fact, but
conceptual. We must fight the problem of the "unwanted child" so that
EVERY CHILD IS A WANTED CHILD. Not by abortion as pro-choice suggests,
but through improved cultural and religious education. It _IS_ possible.

>These may seem to be absurd to some, but must seriously be asked of
>you, since you have not logically (or at all) addressed any of these
>issues.
   Just keep in mind how much harder it is to ANSWER absurd questions
than to create them...
   steve
p.s. - please dont' quote TOO much in reply - damn this gets long...
-- 
aasdSteveFranklin-Subliminal Psychology Major.ks;dlasBlueJaysRULEkasdfeahsdbfl
sd;lfaswoq[eBuyMeAQuadra!!!mbnZMXCNdfsba;KdSPAMiuroqiyetIBMSuxiweuryth'ewr;mxn
qpuepriuPartyOneqtuj;,n.,xnc,kjasFlameMeNot!;lkj;lkgkjd;askElvisLivesjhfquweru
zx.cfranklin@ug.cs.dal.ca,sk;t;lrut[Superboy@ac.dal.cav.zx,Physics!eq3rwkh;oHA