From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 14 Sep 92 13:54:41 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
 |>In article <24799@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)


>        Penetrating intellectual analysis at its finest.

At least you posted....

 |> It's not a human being with the connotations I believe you are implying.

>        The unborn child is a living member of the human species.  Mere human
>tissue is not a living member of the human species.  I have the proof.

Then why didn't you post it, or would it be shot down by recent experiments
that show the interchangeability of certain types of tumors and all
fetuses?

 |> I didn't realize womb residents had sensibilities, or thoughts or emotions
 |> or a host of other personality traits. Could that be because they aren't
 |> persons? Naah, that would be self-evident, wouldn't it. :)

>        If reaction to stimuli is the criterion for sensation, then unborn
>children have sensations quite early in pregnancy.  I can't give you exact
>figures just now, but if you're interested I'll provide them.

So do amoebas, including, if I remember correctly, to light. What's
your point? I don't think that mere reaction to stimuli and having human
DNA resolves the issue to whether an entity is a person. A dead human
will respond to certain stimuli, such as electricity wired to the abdominal
muscles to make them sit up, or fart in response to gas build-up in
the intestines, yet I think no one will argue that they are persons,
although they were, at one time.

>|> Oh, you're speaking with your fetus-idolator persona. Sorry. Abortions,
>|> miscarriages, and deaths will continue despite whatever you legislate.

>        So will other forms of murder.  This does not mean we shouldn't take
>steps to prevent it.

How about preventing the root cause? Someone here recently posted that
the Netherlands, having an extremely liberal education policy regarding
sex and pregnancy, has the lowest abortion rate of any country wherein
it is legal, and a bunch where it isn't. Why don't you push for programs
that prevent the need for abortion, not legislate abortion itself? After
all, a good prgram would also significantly drop all those unwanted
children also, so you'd be killing two birds with one stone (pardon
the pun) and would be a much more efficient use of your time, and much
easier to implement.

 |> Unless, of course, you favor an utopia like "The Handmaid's Tale". Steve,
 |> did it ever occur to you that this might merely have been an extrapolation
 |> of the religious rights views and statements coupled with past activities
 |> sanctioned by the religious right types?

>        Religion has nothing to do with it.  I'm not a religious type 
>myself. A human being is created at conception and it continues until
>death, regardless of your opinion to the contrary.  This human being
>must be recognized as having the same human rights as other human beings;
>to do otherwise is arbitrary.

Apparently, a human being is also created with each tumor, yet I don't
see you arguing for these to be brought to term. WHy not? Why must they
be recognized? WHat precedence is there for recognizing them? And wqhy
is it arbitrary?

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion