From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: Re: Personhood and interference
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 17:32:07 GMT

In article <b__pfzr.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> 
> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes ...
> >In article <07!p7m_.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> >> OK.  Without interference an egg will be flushed as part of the monthly
> >> period.  Thus, since fertilization is clearly interference by the (would
> >> be) parents, they are obligated to restore the natural order by getting
> >> an abortion should the egg be inadvertantly fertilized.
> >
> >Do you believe that there are things such as good and bad interference?
> 
> First you create a new definition of "interference" in an attempt to
> define personhood, and now that that has failed, you're now going to
> come up with good interference and bad interference?

No.  That was always there...I merely assumed that people would realize
this, but I was wrong.  There is good and bad to just about 
everything.  I'm sorry I didn't make that clear from the beginning, but I
am attempting to correct the situation now.  Sorry for the confusion.

> >Good interference would be something that should be done.
> >Bad interference would be something that shouldn't be done.
> >In this case, it would be bad interference if parents wanted the child, but
> >had the abortion anyways.
> 
> And would it be "good interference" if they didn't want the child and
> did have an abortion?

As stated, this case is must to general for me to comment on.  Please
fill in more detail about why a certain couple would not want the child.


> >> Not nearly all fertilizations are successful, and there is no reason to
> >> believe that they ever will be.  I don't even consider it very likely.
> >
> >Why?
> 
> Some zygotes are too damaged to survive.  Some embryos have genes to
> damaged to successfully build a human being.  And why would anyone
> want to go to the considerable expense and time and effort and risk
> of trying to ensure the survival of one particular zygote when another
> can be made almost for free?  Most of us don't have the $10,000 needed
> for in-vitro fertilzation, much less the expense of trying to repair
> the chromosomes in a single-celled zygote.

If a zygote is to damaged to survive, the same arguements that make
euthanasia permissable would also make abortion in this case permissable.

You talk about expensive (at the moment) procedures, completly ignoring the
fact that they will always not be so expensive.  As technology advances,
things become cheaper because ways are found to do thing easier....

> >> Just the first problem to this possibility is the question "why bother?"
> >
> >There are many parents out there who want children, but cannot have them.
> 
> Is this supposed to be a solution?  You can't make babies without 
> sperm, egg, and a place to put them.

And...so what's your point...?

> 
> >> The next is: "Who's paying?"
> >
> >Why should it matter?  It is a potential problem, but not one without
> >solution if people are willing to look for them.
> 
> Why should it matter?!?!  Tell you what.  To show you how much it matters
> let's perform the following experiment.  You come up with $20,000 or you
> die.  You have one week.

Again you are assuming that things will always be expensive.  History tells
us that this is not the case.

Oh, btw, and I could come up with $20,000 in a few minutes, if it was
required.
 
> >> Why speculate on something that is unlikely to ever occur? 
> >
> >Ah, but it is likely to occur.  
> 
> _Every_ zygote is going to implant?  

Accidents occur...nothing is fullproof, no matter how much I or anyone says
something is.

> No matter the initial damage?

If there was to much damage, see above.

> No matter the expense?  No matter the wishes of the people?

Things will always not be so expeince.  The wishes of the people do in fact
matter...that is what I've been saying all along.  Please do not
argue out of ignorance.  It is very annoying.

> >> >Many adults in a coma are like this also.  Would it be ok to kill them?
> >> 
> >> Such adults are not infringing on any one other person.  Further, in many
> >> cases such adults _are_ allowed to die.
> >
> >Sure they are.  Someone has to take care of them if they are kept alive and
> >are therefore infringing on some other person.
> >
> >But not in all cases...the critical point.
> 
> One important difference is that _everyone_ talking care of such a person
> is doing so _voluntarily_.

I am not certain how to respond....could you please explain your point more
clearly so that I can respond correctly.  thanx...



Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40178 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4855 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6227