From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about the Pro-Abortionists
Date: 5 Nov 92 10:47:20 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <1992Nov4.210449.26445@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
># bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>   [...]
># >If you had been aborted, you would have been killed before YOU could
># >exist -- before that which is known as Doug Holtsinger, with all your
># >hopes and dreams and individuality, had come into being.  Before you
># >became distinctly Doug Holtsinger, you would be hardly distinguishable
># >from any other fetus.
># 
># That's a matter of opinion.  You have no idea when anyone's hopes, or dreams
># come into being, you're just guessing.  Furthermore, it's not unreasonable to
># say that one's individuality derives from one's genetic uniqueness and that
># this comes into being at conception.
>
>Indeed.  *I* have no idea when anyone's hopes or dreams come into
>being, but I'm an agnostic -- and as such have to entertain the

...notion that there are things you don't know about?  The notion
that your guess is as good as the next guy's?  Hard isn't it?  (I'm an
agnostic too - pleased to meet you :-)

>incredible notion that human personality may be entirely immanent in
>some kind of nonphysical abstraction (I generally file it right next

Why is this incredible?  Many - probably most - people believe that.  And
their guess is as good as yours.  You wouldn't be one of those science
fundies, would you?

>to the notion that all the Apollo moon landings were faked in a
>Hollywood studio).  I suspect that those who *do* make fundamental
>leaps of faith can claim to *know* such things.

They can claim it, in much the same way that you can claim to *know* (a claim
which you may attenuate by appealing to the mystical faith of 'probability',
which is nonsense in this context) that a z/e/f lacks awareness.

>Furthermore, it *is* unreasonable to say that one's individuality
>derives from one's genetic uniqueness -- otherwise identical twins
>would only constitute one individual.

"derives from", not is defined by.  I think that genetics is closely
correlated with individuality, freedom and lots of other good stuff.  Of
course, I'm only guessing, just like you.

twins, triplets, etc, are further proof of a zygotes superior intelligence...
too smart to be just _one_ person. :-)

># I think that it's rather demeaning to be told that a fertilised egg is no
># more important than an animal.  I think that to unecessarily bring a z/e/f
># into being and then destroy it is - all other things being equal - an act of
># vandalism.
>
>Vandalism?  Hmmm.  Vandalism is the willful or malicious destruction
>of public or private property.  Maybe you didn't mean `vandalism' --

Maybe I was using a metaphor, I dunno.

>or did you really intend to imply that z/e/f's should be thought of as
>property?  Whose property?  Private or public?  I would also point to

Maybe I intended to imply that to _unnecessarily_ call something into 
existence and then destroy it is wantonly destructive, and stupid.  Who
knows what I intended?

>the phrase `unnecessarily bring' in your sentence above, as evidence
>of disguised moral judgement -- who is better qualified to decide
>whether the act of conception is unnecessary than the primary
>participant(s)?

There's no moral judgement in 'unnecessarily bring' intended by me.  There
_are_ circumstances in which conception is unnecessary, but these aren't
everyone's circumstances.  Hence I said 'all other things being equal'.

Maybe an example will clarify.  Imagine a choice (and it should be a choice,
lest anyone misconstrue) of contraceptive A and contraceptive B, equally
effective, equally safe, equally convenient, equally cheap, equally pretty
picture on the package - but B is an abortifacient.  Doesn't it seem utterly
stupid and unnecessary to use B, possibly calling a zygote (which is
certainly more valuable and rare than a sperm or ovum, no matter what you
think of its personhood) into existence and immediately destroying it?
Doesn't it sound similar to vandalism, if there is no _need_ to do that?

>-----
>
># Of course, this is wholly irrelevant to a woman's abortion rights, but that's
># what I think.
>
>I left this quote intact so that anyone who follows up knows the
>context of this debate.  I agree that it's important to separate the
>issue of abortion from the issue of abortion rights -- and the greater
>issue of reproductive rights.  It's fine to discuss both at the same
>time, but it's wrong to confuse the two.
>
>| J H Woodyatt              

-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion