From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Distribution: usa 
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:18:43 GMT

egorr@cie.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes ...
> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:

>>The entire point of all of this is this: a fetus is completely dependent
>>on ONE PARTICULAR PERSON, and that person, save through abortion, is
>>FORCED to participate in this dependency.  Once birth has occurred,
>>no one is FORCED to care for a child.  One does so willingly, or transferrs
>>that dependency to another.  That is one very important difference between
>>a fetus and a baby.
>
>I like this concept of being forced...except that it is not true.
>
>Just because the umbilical cord does not exist physically, does not
>mean that its moral or legal equivalent doesn't exist once the
>child is born.

Boy, you're an idiot.  

>The moral & legal equivalent of an umbilical cord, etc. does in fact
>exist once the child is born.  Except that in this case, you
>would insert "adoption" insead of "abortion."

Here's a clue.  There is no such thing as a moral _or_ legal equivalent 
to an umbilical cord.  Either the child has not yet been born and gets 
all of its bodily needs met through the umbilical cord from the mother,
or it's been born and it doesn't.  Being a parent is a radically 
different experience, and doesn't even require a female anatomy.

>>>What happens if some disaster occurs and the loving and caring parents are
>>>not at home and the child is being watched by a baby sitter.  That child is
>>>totally and wholly dependent on that sitter to save it's life because it
>>>would surely die if someone did not.
>>
>>Why is this important?  Can you not follow our logic?  Are you that obtuse?
>
>Because it shows that the child is in fact totally and wholly dependent
>upon others.

Other_s_.  Plural.  You said it right there.  The child is dependent
on others.  Contrast this with the situation of the embryo/fetus, wholly
dependent on _one_(1) (singular, not plural) person (aka, the "mother").

Notice any difference?

>>But the point is...AT NO TIME is a fetus able to survive without that
>>one particular person to care for it.  A baby, for a time, can survive
>>on its own.  That is one of the things that qualify it for personhood.
>>While a fetus and a baby are both humans, one is definitely different
>>from the other.
>
>Sure it can...what happens if the mother dies...there is still a chance
>if the fetus is removed soon enough that it will survive.

Well then, oh clueless one, it won't be a fetus anymore, will it?
It will be dependent on _other_ people.  It certainly can't be dependent
on the _dead_ mother, can it?

>>You see, if you look at this logically, and you deem the fetus to be a
>>person, then the ONLY reason you could allow abortion is to save the life
>>of the woman.  THat is totally and wholly unacceptable to most of us here.
>>However, if you have no logic then......
>
>No, it is not...please reply to this point via E-mail.

Turn and _dodge_, doin' the fundy dance.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby