From: psl@nrl.navy.mil
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In defense of the supposedly indefensible (was Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?)
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:55:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NRL

In article <25894@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
writes:
>In talk.abortion, psl@nrl.navy.mil writes:
>>In article <25877@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
>>writes:
>>>In talk.abortion, psl@nrl.navy.mil writes:
>...  I have
>>no objection to using "fetus" as long as you understand that for me it has
the
>>same value as a born fetus, as it were.
>
>This is a moral stance, and personal opinion. .....I don't subscribe to that
viewpoint
>either, and oppose laws based on those opinions and morals.

I agree that I too would resent laws imposed upon me based someone else's
morality.  My view that the fetus, both born & unborn, has the same value, is
NOT a moral issue for ME. A combination of logic, consistancy and science lead
me to no other conclusion.  I have been listening to the debate both here and
elsewhere for a long time, and not once have I seen consistant criteria for the
determination of "personhood".  Most are based upon only an arbitrary subset of
the factors that are used by society.  I don't necessarily feel you are immoral
for being for the right of abortion, only sadly mistaken.

Its not an act of moral oppression for me to want to change what I consider a
bad law in this country and, more importantly, to try to change the mind of
people who disagree with me.  The only "morality" that I apply is the same one
used by everyone in this society, yourself included.  The difference is you
feel that morality stops at the womb, for me it is at conception.



>.....that third
>tris are done for medical purposes only (that I know of) and none are
>done for the purpose of just getting rid of a pregnancy. So the above
>is really meaningless, since their are none done except for the exceptions.
>Before this time, the fetus can't live on its own, so the case is moot.
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
This is an example of what I consider a "subset" of the factors which determine
personhood.  Living on one's own is not a sufficient criterion for personhood
and visa versa.   


>I don't see how it matters one way or another. It really doesn't qualify
>as a person at that stage, so why should you have any more guilt over
>that than killing anything else? (This for the moment ignores that many
>women do have many thoughts over whether they should or should not get
>an abortion. I know it is not an easy decision to make, no matter what
>is chosen. I don't wish to belittle this choice in this discussion.)

"Belittled" may not be the right word, but you sure are leaving out the case of
a mother who definitely feels in her heart that the fetus IS a person at that
stage and who, NEVERTHELESS, decides to have an abortion for non-medical
reasons.  This does qualify as an immoral act, if taking a life is defined as
immoral.


In discussing law forbidding laws against third-tri abortions you comment:

>Is that laws against killing people, persons,
>human beings in the traditional sense, or human beings in the pro-life
>sense? Except for the latter, none of these laws would be applicable
>to a z/e/f without changing the core definition of what was intended
>as the protected party.

This is exactly what I hope will come to pass.  The distinction between
"traditional" and "pro-life" is, in my opinion, a fictitious one, due to
wishful thinking and blissful ignorance.

>
>I'll tell you what. The day that you find me an acceptable, perfect
>contraceptive is the day that you can argue for that discretion thing.
>Until then, it is really none of your business. These laws will never
>really apply to you, whereas I believe every other law can apply to
>you at sometime.

I think you might want to reconsider the last statement.  You are willing to
take away a womens discretion (choice) based upon technology. Namely you are
not giving her the right to change her mind after willfully conceiving a child.
 This is an interesting middle ground.

Paul