From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 4 Oct 92 02:45:49 GMT
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science

In <1992Sep28.233710.26746@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>In article <1a7726INNcp4@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep26.215333.2878@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>>In article <1a082pINN5n8@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Sep25.191920.16436@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>>>>In article <19tls2INNgfv@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>>And maybe, just *maybe*, we sense and feel that it is right.

>True, just as there are people who think beating up a child for not 
>behaving properly, or Imperialists taking over other countries to take up
>the "white man's burden" think what they do are right.

>>I don't give a damn about 'the unborn',
>>because I don't think they *have* desires, feelings and wishes.

And just when do you think a human starts feeling pain?  Before birth?
At birth? after birth?  

When do you think a human starts feeling *anything*?  [Same breakdown,
and if your answer is "before", any idea how long before?]

Or can you not be bothered with such questions?

>Now explain a little more about your negative feelings towards the
>unborn.  You don't think they have desires, feelings, and wishes.  That's
>an honest point.  But do you consider the unborn human life? 

It's obvious you are new to talk.abortion, Martin.  Let me fill you in
a little bit.

Most pro-choicers on this net consider the unborn to be human life.  Most
of them consider sperm cells and all other cells from a human body to
be human life.  

I haven't heard any of them consider the conversion of
dermal cells into fingernails to be "human death," nor fingernail 
clippings to be "human cadavers," but I figure it is only a matter of time.

Pro-choicers draw a sharp distinction between human life and human
*beings*, but I am still trying to find out what exactly their definition
of a human being is.  Some might say a member of *Homo Sapiens*, but
none of them seems to have asked a *zoologist* just what they classify
as members of a given species: sperm, fertilized ova, embryos...

Pro-choicers prefer to center their talk on *persons*.  Some of them
flatly take the word synonymous with "Those protected by the 14th
amendment."  Since the Supreme Court has ruled that the unborn are
not so protected, they figure they have an open-and-shut case here.

Others are willing to admit
certain close-to-birth unborn children into the august company of
persons.  Elizabeth Bartley is perhaps unique among the
pro-choicers in consistently
arguing for a phenomenological criterion.  In her beautifully 
apt words, personhood is when there is "someone home."  Only she
seems to have gotten hold somewhere of a theory that this takes
place only when myelination takes place, ~23 weeks, whereas I 
believe it takes place by the time brain waves occur, i.e. at 
6-7 weeks, and possibly before.

>>There isn't anything I said in that particular case where any sensible person
>>could draw this conclusion.  I did not address the fetus' feelings, period.
>>Whether it would or not 'particularly like' a situation or not was entirely
>>unaddressed.

More's the pity.
>>
>>You think it is less tragic for people to have to bear, in some 'violence'
>>may I add, additional children that they KNOW they cannot afford?  That
>>they KNOW they cannot provide for?  There's some compassion, yep.

>Yes, you have some compassion.  But your compassion stems from 
>not caring for the unborn because they do not have any desires, wishes,
>and feelings.  This equates the unborn, which are defintely human, to
>mere nothings.  And when you weigh the preconceived notion that they
>know they cannot afford the child more heavily than the destruction of a 
>human life, then I feel saddened.  

You put it very well, Martin.

>Many of your persuasion have passion but I kindly ask you to look and see
>exactly what the unborn is.  Then we can stop arguing about whether
>we should abort some of our children to provide "better lives" for
>our other children, and instead, work hard for providing all our children
>and having our children be seen as beautiful assets instead of annoying
>liabilities.  

Good advice.  I wish Adrienne would follow it.

>>Somehow I don't think that rejecting it 'nonviolently' would meet with your
>>approval.  Tell me if I'm wrong.  Are you a big supporter of RU-486?

>Violently and nonviolently have little to do with my stand on abortion.
>Humane means of getting read of death row inmates, however, non violently,
>can be just as bad as nonhumane means of executing death row inmates.

In this and everything that I have deleted below (see the post to which
this is a follow up) Martin is, as the Aussies say, "Spot on."

Peter Nyikos