From: rbeckham@bnr.ca (Rick Beckham)
Subject: Re: N-C abortion
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Richardson, Tx.
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:26:14 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.215637.432@uoft02.utoledo.edu> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
>mjsimko@sumax.seattleu.edu (Matthew Simko) writes:
>>
>> We must all agree that anything can happen to the potential person 
>> from the moment of conception until birth. The unborn could 
>> miscarry, the tissue development could be less or more than 
>> "normal", the mother could die, or the unborn can develope normally 
>> and be succussefully born. (Let us not forget that the unborn might 
>> also not survive the birth or removal from the womb even after 
>> nomal gestation.)
>>
>> There is no guarantee for the unborn that once conceived it will 
>> successfully complete the transition from one cell to personhood. 
>
>let me get this straight: "There is no guarantee that the unborn
>will ever be born, so we have a right to decide whether or not it
>that happens".
>
>so if, say, there is no guarantee that you will live to be 80 we have
>a right to cut your life short? you might get struck by lightning
>tomorrow, so i'm sure you wouldn't mind if we stuck you in an electric
>chair 'cause, hey, who's to say you'd have made it anyway?
>
>sorry, don't mean to be caustic, but the idea's ludicrous.
>
>> We cannot guarantee the potential an actuality of exsistence.
>
>your point? guarantees simply can't be made in life. not with 100%
>accuracy at least. does that mean we shouldn't try to reach goals,
>merely 'cause the outcome is never guaranteed? heavens no. that
>sort of thing -usually- makes us try harder.
>
>> The variables are to great. By the same token, the potential can 
>> make no claim of a right to actuality.
>
>this is just a matter of definitions. the unborn isn't just a glimmer
>in someone's eye. they certainly do exist, are living, and human.
>it's just another stage of development we all go through.
>
>> The question them becomes what claims can the potential make. I 
>> think it is obvious...very few. Any claim that a potential person 
>> makes is one of duty. That is to say...you have established the 
>> opportunity for my exsistence, therefore, you have a duty to help 
>> me in the attempt of actuality. I think this is a valid claim. I do 
>> not, however, think this claim can veto the claims and rights of 
>> the mother.
>
>-if- the unborn is human, then a claim to life certainly outweighs
>all others, especially since its situation is entirely out of its
>control.
>
>> Some might say that the unborn is an actual person. But I feel
>> that this argument simply will not stand up. The unborn can only be 
>> a potential person because it exhibits none of the characteristics 
>> of personhood.
>
>what is required for you to consider someone to be a person? i find
>it frightening that we deny the obviously living, and obviously human
>personhood. why? in history, every time a certain group has been
>abused by another the denial of personhood has taken place. there is
>no incident of denial of personhood that has not yielded a holocaust
>of one sort or another. that fact alone would make me leery about
>abortion, even if i believed it should be allowed.
>
>> A loose definition of personhood is not advantageous to either side 
>> of the debate.
>
>how strict do you want to make it? above a certain age, of able body
>and mind? what happens when someone decides -you- aren't considered
>a person anymore? "First they came for the Jews..."
>
>> The reality of the situation is that the mother, as an actual
>> person, has the greatest claim to rights. This being self-evident 
>> when all would agree that if the life of the mother were at stake, 
>> her right to continued exsistence outweighs any claim of the unborn.
>
  For the sake of argument, let's examine a hypothetical situation.
  Suppose that at some future point some scientist (or group of
  scientists) comes to the realization that 20 years down the road
  there will only be enough food to feed the standing population.
  This is considering that all available farmland will be used.
  Now if all alternatives were examined and rejected, let's suppose
  the conclusion is reached that either a.) all unborn babies will
  be terminated, or b.) a segment of the population over 60 will be
  put to sleep. Now, if the unborns are terminated there exists
  little hope for any future generation, mankind may die out.
>i think it would be interesting to explore your definition of "person"
>and what it entails...
>
>jason
>
>--
>`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
>`,`   "...my fellow neuronaughts were all linked up, plugged in, speed-   `,`
>`,`  crazed, and increasing the bandwith of love." - carlsoje@umn.mr.edu  `,`
>`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`