From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 02:46:58 GMT

vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

>parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:

>>vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

>>>parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:

>>>>
[deletions, of parts that were not responded to]

>>>You must learn to differentiate between moral choices and immoral choices.

>>On the other hand, you could stop shovelling and listen to *why* we don't
>>consider it to be immoral.

>Believe me, I have listened.  This doesn't mean, however, that I agree.
>Many arguments you use are often tangential and do not specifically apply.

>>>Do you read anything in this newsgroup?  This has already been addressed.

>>It has?  Which part was addressed:  that suffering is worse than non-creation,
>>or that you don't have a *right* to be *created*.

>>What newsgroup are you refering to?  I'm reading on talk.abortion, but I
>>noticed that a few other groups were added (which I don't read).

>Yep.  I'm on alt.fan.r-l... I never understood how I ended up on t.a. in
>the first place but now I do.  

I don't know who Rush Limbaugh is, but I gather it has something to do with
fanatic pro-life "wisdom"???  (I really hate cross-posts; they cause so much
confusion.)


Perhaps you disagree with my statemtent that "you don't have a *right* to be
*created*"?  If so, perhaps you could explain *why* someone (not yet created)
has a *right* to *be* created.

>>>>The mother is in the best position to make that decision.  How can the rest
>>>>of society know her situation.

>>>Are you telling me there are situations in which premeditated homicide of
>>>a helpless, innocent human being can be judged acceptable by a woman who
>>>doesn't want that human being around?

>>Yes, it's called "abortion".  (particularly early in development, when even
>>Stephen Matheson would have to admit that it can not be sentient--that's
>>pretty early)  A very large number of people (the majority I think) would
>>accept first-month abortions.  (Of course, it is virtually impossible to
>>find out you are pregnant early enough to get an abortion in the first month.)

Just to clear up something in case you aren't clear on it:  The situation you
described is no less true immediately after conception than it is at around
5 months.  The unborn is technically a human being, is "innocent", and the
hypothetical abortion is no more or less "premeditated" in one than the other.
It may also technically be "homicide", and presumably the hypothetical reason
for abortion is that she "doesn't want that human being around".  They are
also both technically "abortion".
You asked if there was a situation in which it would be "judged acceptable"
(I assume you did not mean "judged by the woman" but rather that it was *done*
"by a woman who...".)  My response was meant to indicate that yes, indeed,
there are situations like what you described where it could be judged
acceptable (by most people--you'll never get *everyone* to accept something).

>Come on now!  The sentience argument is a dead end!  If ANYTHING it supports
>my position far more than it supports yours! 

How is it dead?  Are you claiming that sentience happens at conception?  Or
are you claiming that sentience has nothing to do with "morality"?

If you believe that a "soul" gives an embryo sentience, then I challenge you
to find repeatable evidence of "souls" or find repeatable evidence of
sentience in embryos.  (Repeatable means that I or anyone could do the same
sort of experiment and obtain the same results.)

As for morality, if you feel that a "soul" is that highest moral existance
which must be protected at all costs, I ask you why.  Isn't it because we,
as a species, have a level of thought and awareness beyond other animals we
have encountered?  Isn't that sentience why a "soul" is so important?
If "souls" cause sentience, how would you detect a "soul"?  Wouldn't it be
by detecting the behavioral traits of sentience?  Thus if something is not
sentient, it must not have a "soul".  On the other hand, if "souls" do not
cause sentience, then why are "souls" important?  Is it because of the
believed immortality of the "soul"?  If that is true then destroying it is
not possible, so why worry so much?  (Also, try to *prove* that "souls" exist
and are "immortal".)

If you make your position without resorting to the supernatural concept of
"souls", then perhaps you could explain what it is that you feel must be
protected at all costs.  Life?  (That includes a hell of a lot, you know,
and generally makes *your* life impossible.)  Animal life? (why?)  Human
life? (why?)  whatever...*why*?  *Why* is that so important that it must
be protected at all costs?  (no proof needed here, just some reasoning)


>>>You have only demonstrated that abortion is not legally considered murder.
>>>This is a far cry from demonstrating it shouldn't be considered as such.

>>*I* haven't had anything to do with explaining the current legal situation.
>>I said "we"; that includes the banter above (legal definitions) and my own
>>postings to the effect that murder is the destruction of a *person* (which
>>implies sentience), and that the unborn is not a *person*.  (I also gave a
>>lengthy posting as to why it should be considered that way, but I bet you
>>missed it.  Maybe you read a different group than where I post?)

>Person does not imply sentience.  There are many non-sentient persons,
>and this has been demonstrated already.  

Non-sentient person, what a concept.  From "person" we get "personality".
"personality" implies sentient awareness.  How can something that is not
sentient have a "personality" (anthropomorphism aside)?  (First you must
disregard your conditioning to think that "human" and "person" mean exactly
the same thing.)  This is the sort of thing *I* mean by "person".  *You*
might use the word interchangable with "human being", but why waste a
perfectly good term (person) to refer to exactly the same thing as is
refered to by another perfectly good term (human being)?

>>>Edward Simmonds- back from vacation, standard disclaimers  

>>{All flee in panic}
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^==>  You flatter me.

Well, I have to do *something* nice.  ;)

>>-Rob

>E.S.

-Rob