From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:31:57 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.164419.17778@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.225014.1507@nwnexus.WA.COM>, jbrindle@halcyon.com
>(Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>> 
>> In article <1992Sep24.005929.6031@nntp.uoregon.edu> eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>> >In article <jlbzyx_@rpi.edu>, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>> >> 
>> >> Eric_Gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric gorr) writes:
>> >> 
>> >> >There is no point after conception that is a reasonable place to draw the
>> >> >line.
>> >> 
>> >> Sure there is.  Birth.
>> >
>> >Why?  Please defend as best you can.
>> >
>> 
>> Why?  Come on, you can't guess?
>>  1 Tradition.  Birth has ALWAYS been the point at which the fetus becomes
>>       a person.  S/he is given a name, there is a legal document to attest
>>       of the fact of the birth. 
>> ---now, why do you think that's the way it has been?  Could it be, that
>>    until the point of birth, one isn't sure that the fetus is indeed going
>>    to be born alive?  As long as it resides within the womans body, it is
>>    part of her essence.  It has no legal entity of its own.  
>
>Tradition?  This is an interesting philosophy.  Just because something is a
>tradition
>does not necessarly mean that the tradition is good, useful or even
>helpful.  Not to mention that traditions change with almost every
>generation and just because this one
>about BIRTH hasn't for a while, doesn't mean it never will.  Core beliefs
>based only upon tradition are useless.
>
I agree that in general, tradition is somewhat of a poor reason to continue
something, however, in the case of birth being the beginning of a legal
person, tradition is an excellent reason.  For one, WHY do you think birth
has always been the demarkation line?  You didn't answer that question, and
I doubt that you will ever answer it.  So, I'll tell you.  Until that moment
when the fetus is born it does not have an identity of its own.  You can't
see it, you can't hold it, its presence has been felt by one person only.
It hasn't made a sound.  The only thing it has done is kicked.


>Please do not speak in legal terms...they are bogus arguements anyways in
>my book.
>

Then WHAT are you talking about here?  Abortion is a LEGAL right.  This
entire argument is based on LEGALITIES!  If your agenda is to make abortion
illegal then you must argue on LEGAL TERMS.  To do anything else is
immaterial, irrevelant, and incompetent.

But then, I guess you are immaterial, irrevelant and incompetent or you
wouldn't have wondered why birth is so important in the first place.

If you're talking only about immoralities, and you have no agenda to
forbid or restrict abortion, then I'd say the entire argument is moot.
You are in no position to judge a person's morals.  Neither am I.
It doesn't matter when a fetus is a legal person if you're discussing
morals.  So why as the question in the first place?


>I would like to ask you another question.  From your statement, the fetus
>is "born" the
>moment that it leaves the womens body.  Correct?
>

That's the general definition of birth.  Do you have another one?  Please
enlighten me so I can tell my OB and my insurance company.


>What happens when, in the comming years, medical technology is able to

>remove the
>fetus from the womens body, at any point after conception, and is able to
>take care of it so that it is able to develop into a human child?  When did
>it become a person? 
>

Gee, duh, when it is born?  [shake head]  You just don't get it do you?
Or are you deliberately being obtuse?  LEt me ask you a question:  Suppose
in the coming years, we amend the Constitution to enfranchise 16-year olds.
When does a person have the right to vote for the first time?  Can you guess?
If you can figure that one out, try going back and answering your first
question, being careful to read it slowly so you can understand it.

When a baby is born it becomes a legal person, with all the rights and
priveleges afforded any other legal person.  It also becomes a citizen of
whatever political entity in which the birth took place and therefore
has all the rights and priveleges of any other citizen of that political
entity.

You must be being deliberately obtuse not to understand that.  Or, be some
stupid college freshman.

>  
>>  2 Absoluteness. The moment of birth is known and it is absolute.  There is
>>       no question as to when a person is born.  One second it is within the
>>       woman, the next is is not.
>> ---now, why do you think birth is absolute and not conception?  All one has
>>    to do to know the moment of birth is to look at a clock.  To know the
>>    exact moment of conception is extremely difficult AND, one isn't quite
>>    sure of WHAT is being conceived.  Sure, it's a fetus, but is it ONE fetus,
>>    or will it be TWO?  What happens if you declare conception to the the
>>    point of demarcation for personhood and the embryo splits?  Legally, 
>>    both fetuses would be the same person, as they both came from the same
>>    fertilized egg at conception.  Provices some pretty sticky situations.
>
>Why should it matter if it was one or two?  

Gee, you are a stupid college freshman!  LEt's say that you and I are
the same legal person.  I am a citizen of Washington...so are you.  I
am married...so are you (to my husband).  I vote pro-choice (so do you
as we are one legally)  Actually, only one of us could vote as we could
only cast one ballot legally so I guess we'd have to fight it out to
see who wins.  You are legally responsibly for my two children as am I.
When I die, so do you, legally.  If I move to another country and change
my citizenship, I also change yours.

You can't see how totally absurd and asinine this reasoning is?  Surely
you can see why two separate human beings can't possibly be one legal
person.

Tell me, is it possible for you to think, or were you not taught how to
use your mental capacities?


>
>This is bogus.  Birth has got to be the most arbitrary thing on the face of
>the earth.  Not only can it happen naturally at almost anytime, but other
>persons are able to also pick, unnaturally, when the baby is to be "born." 
>Comments?
>

Please read what I wrote again.  Slowly. Did I say anything about birth
being known ahead of time?  No.  I said that the time of birth is absolute
and known.  There is NO DOUBT as to when a baby is born. (That's past
tense, if you can't understand english).  All one has to do is look at
a clock at the moment the baby comes out and you have an absolute, known
birth time. At no time is conception absolute or known.  Sure, you know
some time later that you're pregnant, but no one knows the exact time it
happened.

Gee, you ARE obtuse.


>Again, please do not speak in legal terms.

> 
Again, stilly boy, we ARE talking about legalities here.  There is absolutely
no point in discussing moralities at all.

Also, have you thought about this (no, since you don't or can't think)
Birth is a public event, 99.9% of the time.  There are people around.  There
is a public record.  It is a public celebration.  Conception is a PRIVATE
event, or would you prefer to make it public?  There isn't anyone around
except the two participants when the seeds of conception occur.  At the
exact time of conception, the woman be be by herself, alone in a room.
Not very public, is it?  There is a reason why birth is public and
conception isn't, and there is a reason why legal personhood is associated
with the public, not private event.  Can you guess why?

>>  3 Scientific.  At the moment of birth, the fetus does one thing that
>>    puts it within the realm of a mammal--it breathes air.  As long as it
>>    resides within the woman, it cannot breathe air and it is technically
>>    in limbo.
>
>Ever heard of having to do something to the baby after it is born to get it
>to breath?

Well, college boy, have you ever given birth to a baby?  Have you ever
delivered one?  I HAVE.  Twice.  I can tell you from personal experience that
no spanking of the rear end occured in either birth.  Those babies ere
born breathing.  It helped when they suctioned the nose plugs, but they
took their first breath with no help at all.  There is a medical explanation,
but I doubt very seriously that you're smart enough to get it.


>Just because it breaths, doesn't make it a person.  Not to mention that
>science is developing a way (if they haven't already - I haven't kept up)
>for humans to breath
>a type of liquid.  So, what happens if this becomes perfected and the baby
>is born in
>this liquid and doesn't breath air for hours after birth?  It is ok to kill
>it until it
>does breath air?
>

Let me see...you believe that humans will be able to breath water or
some other liquid?  From birth?  You've got to be kidding!  This is like
the former Soviet Union trying to reverse the flow of all of its rivers.

>This arguement, as stated, is also bogus.

What is so bogus about displaying the attributes of a species?
Let me try to explain, one more time, some things.  No one thing makes
a person a person.  It is a combination of many things.  You asked why
birth was so special, and I gave you several reasons.  No one reason is
good enough, but all of the reasons combined make up the answer.  It's
kinda like gestaltism.  You do understand that concept, don't you?

>
>>  4 (the most important) Separatness.  At the moment of birth, the fetus
>>    becomes a separate entity.  It no longer physically depends on one
>>    specific person to survive.  Any person, male or female, can care for it
>>    and see that it thrives.  A fetus is totally and completely dependent
>>    on ONE particular person, and that person cannot transfer that dependency
>>    to another (without damaging the fetus).
>
>See #1.

I don't understand how changing the time of birth has anything to do with
the fact that at that time, the fetus (now a baby) is totally and completely
separate from the woman.  Regardless of WHEN birth occurs within the gestation
period, at that time it is totally separate and no longer physically dependent
on THAT ONE PERSON.  Any person, or number of persons, can care for it
after birth.  It is a totally separate living breathing person.

Try another answer, college boy.

>
>A newborn child is also totally and completely dependent on ONE particular
>person...who ever happens to be taking care of it at the moment.
> 

But a fetus is totally dependent on ONE particular person---the woman within
whom it resides.  That dependency cannot be transferred without death to
the fetus.  The dependency of a newborn can easily te transferred with no
effects whatsoever.  Can you fathom that? 

>> As a matter of fact, the ONE and ONLY semi-good argument for conception is
>> that is the moment when the separate being starts to form.  The singular egg
>> can't do it without the singular sperm.  However, one semi-good argument 
>> does not and cannot counter at least four very good arguments.
>
>These four arguement each have problems of being out right bogus, or way to
>arbitrary to
>be satisfying.

Well, in you opinion, which hasn't been formulated with much thought or
reasoning.....

>
>> >> >If anything happens to the fetus after conception that does no allow it do
>> >> >become an adult, that would come under "interference."  If nothing
>> >> >interferes, that fetus will grow up to be an adult person.  I can explain
>> >> >further if you wish.
>> 
>> You make it sound like "interference" is a bad thing.  IT is not. 
>> [ examples of how interference is not a bad thing removed ]
>
>Would you agree that in some cases interference is a bad thing and in some
>cases it isn't?
>(I can quote examples if you desire)

I agree that interference can be either.  However, it is not always bad.
You made it sound like it was always bad.  I was trying to point out
that interference can be good.

>
>IMHO, anything that interferes with the development of a fetus to a child
>is a bad thing.
>

Like I said before about your opinion...

>Why do you disagree? (if you do)

Well, my opinion is very complicated.  I'll type slowly.  You see, if
the woman (and, ideally, the man, too) WANT to have a baby, and something
happens to interfer with that process, then that's not good.  However, if
the woman (and, ideally, the man, too) DON'T WANT to have a baby, and
something happens to interfer with that process, then it's not necessarily
bad, and can be quite welcome.  Now, if the woman wants to have a baby, and
the man talks her into an abortion, that's bad--because her wishes have
been ignored.  Likewise, if the woman doesn't want to have the baby and
she is forced by law to give birth (her only option being an illegal
abortion is no option), then that's bad-- for the same reason.

I know it was complicated, and I left out quite a few things, but I
hope you can understand my opinion.  You see, unlike you, I have experience
in life and I know what it is like to find youself unexpectedly pregnant.
So I have thought about this subject quite a bit and used some real-world
situations.

>
>> >> Yet another variation on "Why is conception so special?  Because
>> >> conception is so special."
>> >
>> >Because it is the start of human
>> >life.
>> 
>> It may be the start, but that does not mean it is a good demarcation for
>> personhood.  Actually, it may be the start of A human life.  Human live
>> began a very long time ago, in Africa, I believe.
>
>Please explain further...I don't understand what you are trying to say
>here...

You don't understand that human life began a very long time ago?  Do you
think that you are the first person on this earth?  You can't distiuguish
between A human life and human life in general?

Good luck, college boy.  If you can't understand these things, then you
might as well quit college now and try to get a job at McDonalds.  I
understand that they are hiring.

JEnnifer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion