From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:20:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.195315.7684@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>In article <_v0n11+.bskendig@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian
>Kendig) writes:
>> 
>> Eric, you're missing the point COMPLETELY.
>> 
>> Our debate centers around the question "At what point does a fetus
>> become a person?"  We've given you our stands on this, and our
>> reasoning, and how the points we choose (myelination or birth) can be
>> logically and legally supported.
>
>No they cannot.  You have yet to point out what was so wrong with my
>agruements against yours
> 

Yes we have, we just haven't spelled it out like you're a first-grader.
But, if you insist...

You believe that conception should be the legal starting point for a person.
I believe that starting point should be birth.  Here's why I think birth
is correct and conception is not.

1--Once birth has occurred, you know exactly when it happened.
   Once conception has occurred, you have absolutely no idea when it happened.
   This is important as all "rites of passage" in this country have to
   do with the concept of age--you drive at age 16 (in most states), you
   vote at age 18, you can drink at age 21, you collect social security at
   age 62 or 65, depending.  You can be elected president at abe 35.  It
   is imperative in our society to know how old someone is--to the day.
   There is no way to determine the exact day of conception, we can only
   speculate as to when it occurred.  Birth, on the other hand, in known
   once it happens.  You not only know the day, but the hour and minute.

2--Once birth has occurred, the baby breathes air.  Now I know that
   you don't think this is important, but it is, for before it can breathe
   air, it isn't technically a member or our species as we breathe air.
   This is just one of the components that make us human--there are meny
   more.  At conception, the fertilized egg isn't capable of any kind of
   respiration whatsoever.  If you were a scientist, would you consider
   something that can't respirate, and doesn't need to do so, a human person?

3--Birth has always been used as the mark of a person.  In every document
   ever written the fetus isn't given the same rights as a borned person.
   In fact, it is impossible to give the fetus the same rights as the
   woman from conception.  If you say that the fetus has the right to life,
   over the woman's right to life, then you are giving the fetus MORE rights.
   If you say the woman can terminate, but for only your reasons, then you
   are giving the woman, or actually, YOU, more rights than the fetus.  It
   makes sense that birth should be the demarkation, and people have known
   this for a long time.

4--Birth is also good because at that point, the woman is no longer required
   to care and feed the baby.  Any person can "care and feed" a newborn.
   Only the pregnant woman can care and feed a fertilized egg--she cannot
   transfer that responsibility at this time.

There.  I've spelled it out for you, in plain english.  Do you now understand?
(Oh and I forgot the public vs private issue, but surely you understand
that one, don't you?)


>> You're taking as one of your axioms that "person == human".  Now tell
>> me, how can we debate something if you're already using one side of
>> the argument as an immutable truth?
>
>How?  It is a waste of my time to keep putting IMHO on everything I say.
>Please include it after each one of my statements, if that help you.
> 

There is a big difference between stating "I think a human is a person from
conception and here's why..." and stating "a human is a person from
conception and that's that".

Can you tell the difference?

>> By saying that 'person' is synonymous with 'human', you're turning our
>> argument that "a fetus is not a person" into "a fetus is not a human",
>> then endeavoring to show us how absurd we are.  Of course it's absurd
>> to say that a fetus isn't human!  And that's not at all what we're saying!
>
>How exactly and I saying that a fetus is not a human.  I never said that.
>It wouldn't be true.

There you go again.  You are completely missing the point.  No one is
saying that a fetus isn't a human, what they are saying is that you are
arguing apples and fish eggs.  What we are saying is there is no evidence
that a fetus is a person.  Its humanity is beside the point.


> 
>> Every single argument we make for why a fetus is not a person is
>> immediately turned down by you.  You say, "well, the fetus is
>> obviously human, so you're wrong and your point is irrelevant."  This
>> is NOT the way to conduct a debate.
>
>The fetus is human...go back to basic biology if you don't believe me.

See, you did it again.  I'll type this slowly.  _No_one_is_saying_a_
fetus_isn't_human_.  You're not saying it, I'm not saying it.  NO ONE
is saying it!  We are saying that we have very good arguments as to why
we believe that a fetus isn't, and shouldn't be, a PERSON.  

Now hear this, Eric:  A human entity may not be a legal person.  The two
are not the same.

>I have yet to see you even make the attempt to point out how I am wrong.
> 

I did.  Several times.

[Wild comments about humans breathing liquid deleted.]

>
>> We say
>> that birth is a good start for personhood because that's when the
>> human life is given a name; you say to stop talking about legal
>> issues?  I say that an embryo resembles a fish more than it does a
>> human adult; you say I'm wrong?  Start supporting your arguments, not
>> just saying "I can explain if you wish"!
>
>No, when ever someone says "legal" or some alternate there of, that is
>when I say to stop speaking in legal terms...at no other point do
>I mention this...

Well, college boy, abortion IS about legalities.  If you're not here
to debate legalities then go home.  Morals aren't important, only
legalities.

My opinion doesn't make a legal act.  Nor does yours.

If you want to believe that a fetus is a human from conception, then
FINE--just don't try to legislate that belief.

>> I am very annoyed at how you've just been taking our arguments and
>> dismissing them as 'nonsense' without any further consideration.
>
>I am very annoyed about how you've have only said I'm wrong and why I ask
>to you expand and explain all I hear is silence.
>

We have tried to explain how you're wrong legally.  Your opinion isn't
wrong, it's just misguided.  Unfortunately, you can't read between the lines
yet.  I guess you haven't taken that course.


>> I'm participating in this debate because I freely acknowledge that I
>> could very well change my position on the abortion issue, if someone
>> were to give me a sufficiently-persuasive argument for why my beliefs
>> might not be as solid as other beliefs. 
>
>That is my reason also.
>

It sure doesn't sound like it from here.

>> From what you've been posting
>> for the past three weeks, it really doesn't look like you are letting
>> your mind be very open to points of view that differ from your own.
>> If you honestly believe that you're right and the rest of us are
>> wrong, and that this will always be the case, please just say so.
>
>Well, say something that doesn't violate basic truths of biology and I
>might
>actually start changing my mind.

I haven't noticed anyone say anything that violates basic truths about
biology but you.  You seem to be uninformed as to when human life began,
or even what it is.  You seem to think that babies need some sort of
jump start to breathe, when that is not the case.  You seem to think
that humans can breathe liquids (or at least--will be able to!).

>
>I don't know I am right, but I do know that no one is even trying to prove
>me wrong - all I see are lame arguements that violate some basic
>fact.

I see, when someone says something to suppoort their belief, you totattly
dismiss them as "lame".  Well, two can play this game.  I see NOTHING
that you have said which IM MY OPINION, is a GOOD REASON to believe
that a just-conceived fertilized egg is  PERSON, with the same legal
rights and privaleges as I have.  Your arguments in support of your
conception idea are LAME and violate all basic legal facts.

So there.

Jennifer
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40831 talk.religion.misc:17747 alt.atheism:18441