From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:09:51 GMT

egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:

>In article <_vfzvqn@rpi.edu>, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>> 
>> One of the strongest points for choosing birth is that WE ALL KNOW when
>> birth happens.  It's there, it's visible, and there's generally a good
>> deal of noise involved.

>Much to arbitrary.  

Too arbitrary for what?  Granting rights?

>Especially when it can happen at any time, either 
>naturally or unnaturally.  

Irrelevant and nonresponsive.  If you think this has any significance,
please explain why.

>Do you see a problem with it being arbitrary.  If not, why?

A "problem" with it? No.  Is it arbitrary?  Yes, but it's much,
MUCH less arbitrary than the ill-defined "conception".  BTW,
have you defined "conception" for us yet?  Conception is not a
"moment", you know, it's a process.  At exactly which point in
this process do you propose to grant rights?

>> When were you conceived?  Not, "on a camping trip" or "after a few
>> bottles of wine on Mom and Dad's anniversary", but the day, hour,
>> and minute.  You don't know, and you can't find out.  

>Not now, but what happens when this does become possible?

<sigh>  Please brush up on your science.

It IS POSSIBLE to follow the process of conception.  It's possible
to know exactly when the sperm enters the egg.  It's possible to
know when the first cell division occurs.  Why don't we do it as
a general rule?

Because the procedure is invasive, uncomfortable, but most of all
because conception JUST ISN'T VERY IMPORTANT.

>> Until you are born, your life is a gigantic question mark.  Many
>> babies do not survive the birth process.  So until birth, it's
>> almost impossible to estimate how successful a given fetus will
>> be as an air-breather. 

>What happens when it is possible for every conception to lead to a birth?

1. As has already been explained to you, this would be an extremely
   undesireable condition.  (I say this only so you can't whine 
   that I didn't answer the question.)

2. The question itself is pointless and silly.  You seem unwilling
   to deal with the impact of your ideas on the here-and-now.  It
   seems that every time someone points something out to you, you
   handwave it away with an airy "someday....."  When someone gets
   exasperated because your refuse to deal with facts that are 
   directly in front of you, you climb on your high horse and sniff
   that you don't have to listen to them because they're being _sarcastic_.
   I have little use for someone who, instead of dealing with the
   points that are raised, says "But what if that were irrelevant?"
   Address the question _first_, then deal with hypotheticals.

>> Not to mention the blatantly obvious fact that once you are born, you
>> are no longer bodily dependent on another human being. 

>Yes, you are.  The child needs to be fed by someone hand.  Need to feel
>the loving touch of another human.  Need to be spoken to....I could go on,
>but you get the point.

No, again, you _refuse_ to get the point.  The fetus is dependent on
ONE SINGLE PERSON, 24 HOURS A DAY.  NO ONE BESIDES THAT PERSON CAN
CARE FOR IT.  IF THAT PERSON DIES, THE FETUS DIES.  None of this is
true for a baby.  You also missed the word "bodily" in the above
sentence.  The fetus is dependent on another human beings for 
_body_functions_.  Like breathing, waste elimination, etc.  This
is also not true for a baby.

If you refuse to acknowledge this point yet again, I'll have to
conclude that you're being deliberately dishonest.

>> >Because it is the start of human life.
>> 
>> Human life began several million years ago.  Conception is just a
>> stage.

>Jeeze. Oh, fine.  If you are too ignorant to insert a simple "a" in the
>sentence, then I would rather you not reply to any thing else I've written.

Heh.  I find it rich that _you_ would call _me_ ignorant, given that
I'm the one who's addressing reality.

If you are too ignorant to realize the truth of what I've said,
etc etc.  The fact is that life began billions of years ago.  It
continues in an unbroken chain to this moment.  Please prove that
an individual human life begins at conception.  At what _point_ 
in conception does it begin?  Define "individual".  In what 
_sense_ can a conceptus be said to be an "individual"?

Your arguments appear to be very poorly thought out.

>I appologize that I neglected to do this, but this kind of stuff is really 
>starting to get on my nerves.

Oh nonsense.  You keep complaining that everyone is being sarcastic
to you.  If this appears to be so, then perhaps you should consider
that it might be something in the _nature_ of your statements that
inspires it.  The only problem is that it's much, much easier to
just say "Oh, you guys are being sarcastic." and not address the 
point.

                            -rocker
Newsgroups: talk.abortion