From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Rational Discussion (Re: In defense of the supposedly indefensible)
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:47:28 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, psl@nrl.navy.mil (Paul Lebow) writes:
>In article <26193@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
>writes:

>I feel this is a case where rights are in contention and that the right of
>the fetus to continue its existance takes precidence over the pregnant
>woman's right over her body.  This is right "A" verses right "B",
>irrespective of whether "A" applies to the mother or fetus.

How can one right subject another person and deprive them of their rights?
This is where I have problems. This is equivalent to saying that a diabetic
with a close genetic match to me could be hooked up to my body to make
use of my natural insulin system. This cannot be done, legally, and
is in effect no different than seeing right A take precedence over right
B in our case.

>If, as you believe, the fetus has no rights, because its not a person
>(whatever that means) then your view of "fetus as human" really DOES bear
>on your reasoning.  I am assuming that you do agree, in general, that
>different human rights can conflict at times.

I admit that the right of someone to own a beautiful valley home may
sometimes be abridged for the needs of a community to have a water resevoir.
I do not see how anyone can be forced to give of their own body to support
another. As far as whether the personhood of the fetus making a difference,
it wouldn't matter, as the fact will always remain that a fetus cannot
think, cannot intellectually feel, nor is conscious to what is occurring
to it in any but the most primitive fashions.

>>Actually, the gestation cycle is started all the time in the laboratory,
>>it just isn't transplanted to a uterus very often. No one has any trouble
>>at all throwing away those clumps of cells...

>If this is being done routinely for the purposes of experimentation with
>human embryos, I am very much concerned.  Pardon my ignorance - if you can

This is not allowed as far as I know. But a do know there are a lot
of frozen embryos out there. And many of them will not be implanted.

>>No, they differ in one very important fact. They developed simultaneously,
>>and coexist. They are symbiotic, not a host/parasite relationship....

>I said I questioned the value of any such example.  However, your
>characterization of it being sybiotic seems presumptuous to me.  Twin "A"
>may very well consider twin "B" a parasite.  He may choose to take the
...

Maybe so, but whose organs are they anyway? Is there anyway to determine
which organs belong to which twin? Are you sure? I do take note that
you are uncomfrotable with these examples, but they serve to point out
flaws in various arguments, and are therefore important.

>Ron - I wasn't trying to put you on the spot here. Often I sense a need

I didn't think you were. This has not degraded to a point I would think
that. Perhaps it won't. It must be refreshing to those who clamor for
real dialogue between opposing views to see this series of posts. :)

>for folks on one side or the other to first "prepare" their opponents by
>demonizing and stereotyping them.  Its much harder for me to be
>anti-abortion given that my wife, my parents, my friends and colleagues
>are pro abortion rights.

Understood. No problem. I'm sending that other post now.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:43059 talk.religion.misc:18517 talk.philosophy.misc:1960