From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: TOO YOUNG TO CHOOSE
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:07:52 GMT

In <1992Nov4.184000.2710@brandonu.ca> mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:

>In article <1992Nov3.204620.2480@ncsu.edu>, jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:
>>  ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>> |>jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes ...
>> |>>> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>> |>>Preventing illness- I am a firm beiliever in preventative medicine. You
>> |>> should treat the problem before it arrises.Example- use birth control
>> |>> so you don't get pregnant.

>You have yet to address the issue of birth control pills which prevent
>implantation of fertilized eggs on the uterine lining.  What's the
>primary difference between this and abortion to you?  Besides all that,
>abortion *is* birth control, no matter what reason it is used for.
>I suspect that you mean to refer to contraception.

Until the people who gave us the euphemism "interrupting a pregnancy"
give us "retroactive contraception." :-)
 
>[...]
>> |>Ah, I see.  You value the life of the "baby" more than you do the
>> |>mother then.  Just wanted to get clear.
>> |>
>> Where did I say that? I can see twisting my words but putting them in my
>> mouth? that is wrong. 
>> 
>> I value both lives and as I've stated in an earlier post I havbe now come
>> to the conclusion(although I don't like it) that if there is a choice
>                    ************************
>> between the mother's life and baby's life I will grant the mother an abortion
>> to save her life

>Why don't you like your decision to grant the mother her life rather than the
>fetus'?  Would you prefer the mother died?  And why is it up to you to decide
>who is "granted" an abortion, and who is not?  Do you plan to one day run
>for office of some sort?

Scoot off, Brian. 

[Brian used a much less nice word than "Scoot" with me, with less provocation.]

>> |>Here's a clue: Everybody who was ever born started out as an
>> |>unfertilized egg.
>> |>
>> You are missing my point! Yes that is true but you are not dening life
>> if that egg is not fertilized 

"denying" [to correct the spelling] is not appropriate, as Brian now 
points out. "destroying" is better, although I would append "human" before
"life".  And, knowing the quirks of the people in this newsgroup, I would
write "destroying a human" instead of "denying life".

>If one denies an egg fertilization by abstaining from sex or using
>contraception, one is obviously denying life.  Without fertilization,
>there will be no life.  Denying fertilization denies life.

>No babies can be aborted.  This is not talk.infanticide.

A viable fetus has a perfectly legitimate claim to be called an "unborn
baby."

>> |>>I am by no means superior to a woman I feel everyone is equal. But this
>> |>>also includes the life of the child.
>> |>
>> |>So for that reason you feel justified in stealing the woman's uterus
>> |>and giving it to the fetus to use for nine months?

Damn good reason, I'd say, even if this silly talk were justified.

>> I didn't steal it she gave the fetus permission when she had sex.

>Why?  What makes you think that?  The woman *may* have given the man permission
>to ejaculate inside of her vagina, but there is no fetus at that point 
>in existance, therefore no permission could possibly be granted.

A man can give permission to children not yet conceived to inherit a piece
of his property.  It's stretching the word "permission", granted, but
not as much as Adrienne stretches "inhabit" to include what a rapist does
to his victim.

Let alone as much as Ray stretches things when he talks about Jeffrey
stealing a woman's uterus.

Peter Nyikos