From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  1 Oct 92 02:03:25 GMT

In <c!#ptlb.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>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?

An 8-week embryo is ready to be called a fetus.  Also a person, IMHO.
I do agree, though, that this is something on which reasonable people
can still reasonably disagree.  For instance, Elizabeth Bartley is 
very reasonable, and I keep very reasonably disagreeing (and often
agreeing) with her, on this issue and many others.  So, to get to my
point: I certainly would never presume to judge Karen on this issue.

[Having said this, I now say with Martin: let's leave Karen out
of this if we can.]

>>> 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.  

And even if someone some day becomes a carbon copy of Sarah, she won't
be Sarah.

>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.

Except that the fetus is not "potential" life.

>>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.

You'd change your tune soon enough if a terrorist hijacked a plane
you were on.
>>
>>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.

There's no "them" to reject in your scenario, Ray.

Peter Ny.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39554 alt.abortion.inequity:4153