From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Did this get posted already? (was Re: Siamese twins false analogy (Re: Badges of Honor)
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:44:35 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>Did this get posted already?

I guess not, or I missed it.

>In article <24834@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wri
>>In talk.abortion, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>>Another note on this Siamese twin topic. Steve, there's a fundemental
>>difference between siamese twins and a pregnant woman. With siamese
>>twins, it is unclear exactly who has sole proprietorship of which organs,
>>if any. This is not the case with a pregnant woman. She had sole proprietorshi
>p
>>of all her organs before conception, and the fetus is an invading lifeform.

>We all have "sole proprietorship" over our property.

Not exactly, as it can be taken away from us for any number of reasons,
some of them legal. Organs can not be taken, against our will. See the
difference?

>>Siamese twins develop simultaneously (at least effectively) and which
>>has rights to what organs is questionable. Not so for the woman, since
>>they are defintively her organs. A closer analogy would be the tapeworm.

>Closer on one side and 10 times further away on the other:
>The z/e/f is the offspring; the tapeworm is not only not the
>offspring, but they are of a different species altogether. DNA did not
>provide for the tapeworm's presence, but DNA did provide an exact
>place for human offspring to live during their first 9 months of life.

Please explain ectopic pregnancies then.

>That's not true for the tapeworm.

Its DNA provided for it's place of residence. (It doesn't grow without
it, and will die.) It just happens to be in another's body. Sound like
a familiar scenario?

>More serious fundamental wrongs in your argument.

You haven't shown any except that the tapeworm has non-human DNA, but
this is really invalid, as the z/e/f has different DNA than the mother,
and so do cancer cells. You have yet to show why the tapeworm and cancer
cells can be removed (in essence the removal of an invading organism)
and fetuses should be treated differently.

>The only thing you've proven in this paragraph is a principle parallel
>to the "life of the mother exception" that is outlined in the Human Life
>Amendment.

But here you ignore the fact that someone else, not either of the two
parties in question, decides if it should occur, and if so, to whom.
These are equal parties, which is still different t5han a mother and
fetus, where the mother is of obviously greater import in the case.

>I knew you'd come up with a tapeworm-like argument: you got the right
>latitude of the issue, but boy, did you go way off on the longitudal
>calculations.

If so, then why don't you come up with a reasonable counter-argument?
The one you presented was by no means convincing, and I'd like you
to prove different, if possible. At least I knew what was coming, and
believe the response was pre-empted before you posted. Now I'm curious
as to what you can argue to prove your point.

>If a z/e/f is not a human being it is only because certain courts do
>not recognize the genetic whole-ness of the z/e/f, plus the fact that
>they are growing and differentiating by their own actions, not by
>genetic direction from anyone else.

The same can be said for cancer cells. What makes them any different?

>This is clearly discrimination, and as I said before, the Human Life
>Amendment is desperately needed to dash this and all other hopes that
>anti life mentalities might have, of discriminating and calling human
>lives "non-persons."

Are cancer cells included? If not, you're still discriminating. And
you're still discriminating if you deem any other life less than any
other, including ectopic pregnancies. You see, you'll hang yourself
no matter which way you turn, because you're being hypocritical no matter
what you do. (except for one case, in which case you'll be considered
a cold, heartless individual, as you would rather see women die than
grant them abortions. Unfortunately for you, this is the only option
which is not hypocritical.)

>By the way, if the fetus isn't human, then is s/he a dog? And if they
>are existing, how can't they be a being? They _are_ here and "are" is

Call them entities. or do you call a single-celled organism a being
also? Kind of waters down the meaning of being, doesn't it?

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39374 talk.religion.misc:17401 alt.atheism:18196