From: varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Consensus stuff - the real reasoning
Date: 8 Nov 92 20:09:39 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center


	Some time in the past couple of weeks, Brian McBean
(MCBEANB@BrandonU.CA) posted an article "summarizing" a discussion
I have had with him over email for the last couple of months, and
asked for your opinions as to whether my reasoning was based on religion.

	First of all, let me point out that his posting of a discussion
that took place in private email without my consent (without even my
knowledge until after the fact) is in clear violation of nettiquette.
I did not authorize his posting of my thoughts, and he posted information
without any real background to it. The question of a soul is a side issue
that does not IN ANY WAY reflect my reasoning as a whole. To understand
what Brian posted correctly, one would have to have knowledge of the
entire discussion. Many important things were left out. His post as
a whole (which he sent me a copy of) is a misrepresentation of my
stance.

	As to responses - I do not read talk.abortion. If you wish to
discuss my viewpoint with me, do so over private email.

	As to the question of whether my reasoning is based on religious
beliefs, you should respond to talk.abortion - Brian will keep me apprised
of the general trend in that discussion.

	My philosophy is based on a logical progression. If you wish
to discuss it, pick the first item in the progression with which you
disagree. Picking later items is non-productive, as they are based
on the items in the list which preceed them.

1) It is a widely held opinion that all people should be given the 
   right to live (among other rights). It is also widely held that it
   is improper for one person to violate another person's right to live
   unless the second person is intentionally and actively violating the
   rights of the first. Note that I am not restricting the right to live
   souly to people - I am merely stating that the vast majority of people
   agree that (at least) all persons should enjoy this right.

2) Endless bickering and non-consensus will not lead us to common ground
   on this (or any) issue. We must strive to reach conclusions which
   all (or at least a vast majority of) people can agree upon.

3) To ensure that the rights of every human being are protected, we must
   obtain a definition for a "person". There are certain requirements on
   any such definition if there is to be a consensus. 
    a) Definitions based
       on personal beliefs (religious or otherwise) are worthless, as they 
       cannot possibly lead to a consensus. 
    b) Any definition must not exclude beings currently considered persons.
       Such definitions as "two arms and two legs" or Brian's favorite
       "capable of having face to face coital sex" do not fit the bill, as
       there are people who do not fit these descriptions now.
    c) Any definition must exclude beings that all would agree are not
       human (ie dogs, flys, flowers, etc).
    d) Any definition must be one which can be tested for in some manner.
       Said tests must have results that CANNOT be disputed, else there
       is still no chance for a concensus. Such definitions as "all
       persons must be self-aware" do not fit the bill, as there is no
       way to be certain if a being is self-aware or not.

4) We must settle the question of whether life is present. Cells are growing
   and dividing from the moment of conception. There is no question that
   there IS life present. I am making no judgements as to the quality
   of that life in this point, only aknowledging that there is life.

5) We must also decide the qualifications for being a separate entity.
   Once again, I am not commenting on the personhood of a being in this 
   point - I am speaking to the topic of separateness.
     a) I am sure that we can all agree that two beings that are not
	physically connected obviously are separate.
     b) I recall a story over the summer where scientists found "the largest
	mushroom in the world". Originally there was some dispute as to 
	whether it was one mushroom, or a colony of many connected mushrooms.
	The question was settled by genetic sampling of several locations on
	the mushroom - the genetic code was the same within a certain
	tolerance accountable for by mutations. The constancy of the genetic
	code throughout the being was used to prove that it was in fact one
	single entity.
     c) I would assume then that if the scientists had found radically 
	different genetic codes in different locations, that the "mushroom"
	would have been considered actually a colony of mushrooms. I
	interpret this to mean that two being whose genetic codes are not
	similar to within a tolerance accountable for by mutations, are
	separate beings. Clearly then, a mother and child are separate
	beings.
     d) I recognize that there may be other conditions that would qualify
	two beings as being seperate beyond points 5a, and 5c, but consider
	any group of beings that satisfy either 5a, or 5c to be separate
	entities.

6) Now back to our definition of what a "person" is. Recalling the 
   specifications for a definition for "person" set forth in point 3,
   there is only one possible definition (to my knowledge) that satisfies
   each of these criteria. Each and every human being has certain 
   characteristics within his/her genetic code which identifies them as
   a member of the human race. The results of a test for these characteristics
   are indisputable - either they are there, or they are not. All present
   humans have these characteristics, while those who are not people do
   not. Note however that there are beings that are disputably either people
   or not, depending on who you talk to. Unborn children are one such group
   of beings. Clearly they qualify as person's under this definition.

7) According to the reasoning set forth by 1-6 then, abortion is clearly
   wrong. A fetus qualifies as a separate living human being, and is not
   intentionally or actively violating the rights of the mother. The mother
   therefore has no right (nor does anyone else) to violate the right of
   the fetus to live. 
   
8) As violating someone's right to live without just
   cause (as noted before) is a crime in this (an most if not all other)
   country, so too should abortion be.

9) Note also that the father of the child has certain rights and 
   responsibilities. Should the mother not wish to keep the child,
   the father should be given the right to keep the child if he so
   desires. In cases where neither father nor mother wants the child,
   the child can then be put up for adoption. In any case, the father
   should be responsible for half of the medical bills resulting 
   from the pregnancy, and if the mother should decide to keep the
   child, half of the support for the child. Note also that the best
   environment for a child is to have both parents (with exeptions noted
   for abusive parents, etc) present, and as such, people should 
   strive to have children within the context of a relationship where
   both parents can be there for their child as he/she grows up.
   This implies that people should use birth control, and/or
   abstinence as needed. However, it does NOT imply that one should
   kill a child rather than bringing that child into a one-parent
   situation.
   

	Once again, I will say that if you wish to discuss my reasoning,
you should pick the first point with which you disagree, and discuss
that point only. Discussing point 6 is useless if you disagree with
any of the previous points, as point 6 is based upon them.


		Bruce
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame