From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 03:48:46 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>To many people, justifying abortion is like justifying murder.  What we
>sometimes do (yes, I am guilty of it too) is to rationalize the things we
>do and the things we fight for even when somewhere back there, we sense
>and feel that it is wrong.  But eventually, after a long period of time,
>it becomes ingrained in us and it seems to be the right thing to do.  When
>this happens to me, it sometimes takes a friend, a relative, a teacher to
>point this out to me.

This cuts both ways.  What people do sometimes is rationalize positions
until the position becomes truth.  This is true (probably) of people
rationalizing abortion as well as people rationalizing their opposition
to it.  Who's correct?  Is a 8-week embryo a person?

>>The fact of the matter is that MANY people have some idea of how many
>>kids they will have.  Some have that many, some have more and some have
>>fewer.  That one fetus was aborted, while another fetus spontaneously
>>aborted doesn't seem all that terribly tragic to me:  it's the way hte
>>human animal works.  Fetuses *are* renewable in most cases, after all.
>
>Maybe it is because our perceptions of the unborn are different.  When you
>say renewable, you mean to say Joe can easily replace Sarah.  But once 
>Sarah is aborted, you will most likely never ever have another Sarah with
>the same facial characteristics, hair color, innate ability, etc. etc. etc.
>Sarah is gone forever.  When you let Joe live, great.  But Joe is definitely
>not Sarah and never can be.  Sarah was "sacrificed" for Joe.  

When a couple decides not to have sex so as to avoid an unwanted
pregnancy, they decide that Bill/Betty will never be, and although
they may someday concieve, the child Clara/Chuck will never be the
same as Bill/Betty with his/her personality, facial characteristics,
abilities, etc.  (Only one "etc" is called for.  More are redudant.)

Once you start arguing potentialities you start getting into really 
silly territory.

>But do Sarah and Joe have any difference in value?  I don't really think
>so.  "Choosing" one to live and one to die is certainly a terrible decision.

Life & death decisions are made daily.  Most people don't notice.
Terrible?  Nah.  No more so than is the universe.

	A man said to the universe, "Sir, I exist."  "However,"
	replied the universe, "the fact has not created in me a 
	sense of obligation."
				    -- Stephen Crane (1871-1900)

>>You're kidding.  "I hate thinking that children are 'chosen'?"  Do you 
>>prefer thinking children are accidenta
>
>What I mean by chosen is that first you have Sarah in the womb.  Do you
>keep or let her live?  Then later, you have Mark.  Do you let him live
>or abort his life?  It goes to a point where those who are living become
>the chosen few, while those who are aborted become the "rejected."  I find
>it terrible to have to reject our children violently via abortion.

As opposed to rejecting them through the neglect of failing to concieve?
Sheesh, what depressing alternatives you present.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA