From: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: Don't just whine about media bias. Do something!
Date: 2 Oct 92 03:57:11 GMT
Reply-To: hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

In article <1992Oct1.125811.29250@spectrum.xerox.com>, rgoers@gumdrop.Xerox.COM (Ron Goers) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.035207.29271@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> hatcher@MSUPA.PA.MSU.EDU writes:
>Let me guess, where you'd draw the line:
>>  1 ns (1e-9 seconds) after fertilization of the egg?
>>Why?  It don't look like a baby, it don't feel like a baby, it don't
>>*smell* like a baby... maybe it's not a baby; so let's leave the
>>little premie babies alone and discuss the real issue: early term
>>abortions.
>
>Ah, doesn't look, smell, taste, etc. like a baby.  Maybe it will grow up to be
>a DUCK, or a TREE, of maybe a KAOLA BEAR.  The mere fact that it will grow up 
>(if not prematurely killed) to be an adult proves the existance of such (in
>miniature form) at '1 ns (1e-9 seconds) after fertilization of the egg.'

I shouldn't even bother with this one; we've discussed the differnce between
*potential* and *is* innumerable times here.  A fertilized egg has
potential to become human given the right environment (nutrition, waste
elimination, appropriate fluids/temperatures). Similarly an unfertilized
egg has potential to become human given the right environment (nearby
fertile sperm + the above).  Sorry, but I don't see any significant
difference, except a little luck (which one is "lucky" depends on what
the woman wants).  Besides that same potential human (fertilized egg)
has a noticable probablity of not implanting.  So nature is probably
killing off more potential humans than all the abortions -- maybe we
should prosecute God for all those "murders".

>  Besides if you were so
>>worried about abortions why didn't you encourage potential mothers
>>to carry to term by adoption out of the waiting pool?  
>
>Some close friends of mine who work at the local Crisis Pregnancy Center did 
>just that recently.  I think they're half crazy, as they haven't had a baby
>in their house for over 10 years.  

But YOU personally didn't adopt.  So I consider you part of the problem.

>Seems, my 
>>newspaper carries pictures of kids needing adoption regularly.
>>Those mothers went through all that effort to produce a child just
>>for you and you spurn it?  They see the waiting queue and say
>>why bother since NO ONE wants the children that already exist.
>
>That's simply not true.  I know of two couples personally, who had 
>such 'fun' wading through paperwork, that they opted for private adoption. 
>The drawback here is that it was VERY expensive.  One couple ended up adopting
>three children in 2 years!  These children which you speak of aren't unwanted,
>they are tied up in social services' paperwork.

Oh, *private* adoptions...I'm so sorry that those children in public 
agencies aren't good enough.  What was the problem.  They weren't white
enough?  Cute enought?  Had disabilities?  Emotional difficulties?
Too expensive, how expensive?  More than pre/post natal care for your wife?
(especially since you ended up with an expensive premie; paid by insurance?
oh, thanks for raising up eveyones rates...)  Couldn't be bothered with
a little paperwork?  To me that implies YOU consider those children not
worth the bother.  If adoptions are too difficult and loaded down in
paperwork why don't you spend your effort working on THAT problem!
When you have it solved and there are no UNwanted children waiting
to be adopted, then you can come back and we can deal with abortion.
Until then I'll consider you a hypocrite; not the worst I've ever met
but still whatever you say about reproduction issues will be suspect.

>Ron Goers @ Xerox Corporation     Email: rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com

-robert (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion