From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 19:53:58 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

Your post demonstrates a lot of the misconceptions that pro-lifers
have about pro-choicers.  I'd like to try to clear things up a bit.

William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) wrote (in article <1992Sep27.173710.24217@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>):
>Allow me to take this from another perspective -- has anyone ever
>proven that a partially developed fetus is NOT alive? Allow me answer
>that -- no, nobody ever has.

We're not debating whether or not it's alive; that's a given.  A fetus
is as alive as a human adult is, or as a cat is, or as a protozoan is,
or as a cell of skin from your finger is.  There are no varying
degrees of aliveness -- either you're alive, or you're not.

The debate is whether or not it's a 'person', and it's fairly easy to
show that a fetus does not fall under some definitions of 'person'.
Not 'human', mind you.  'Person'.  And we should give a live fetus
that's not a person the same moral consideration that we should give a
live animal that's not a person.  Sometimes this involved killing it
because we can't afford to give it the resources it needs, like the
SPCA puts unwanted dogs and cats to sleep.

>Therefore, it is entirely POSSIBLE -- not
>certain, mind you -- that aborting a fetus MAY be taking a life. Is
>society not supposed to err on the side of caution? If there is a
>possibility we are commiting genocide, shouldn't society listen to the
>better angels of their nature and put a stop to it? Just a thought.

I feel that there's as much chance that a fetus before myelination
could be thinking as there is a chance that a rock could be thinking.
Neither of them has the neurological wiring that would allow thought
as we currently understand it.

Therefore when it comes down to the question of compromising a woman's
rights because of a theory which currently has no scientific support
at all, I strongly oppose it.  If you want to err that far on the side
of caution, then you'd have more success banning the slaughter of
chickens and cattle for food, because their brains are more developed
than is the brain of a fetus before myelination.

>I find it stangely ironic that those who are for abortion because of
>overpopulation are also opposed to hunting which, in most cases, keeps
>populations of animals with no natural predators under control. It even
>seems that they care more for deer and moose than children -- human
>beings. Weird.

One of the reasons I support abortion is because I see it as something
that'll help reduce the acceleration of overpopulation.  Contrary to
your assertion, though, I'm not opposed to hunting, as long as it's
done in a humane (make sure you kill what you shoot, and quickly) and
responsible (don't hunt bald eagles or spotted owls or other
endangered species) fashion.

And it's not true that many people care more for deer and moose than
for children.  If faced with a decision between having to care
full-time for a moose (buying everything it needs) or killing it, I
know of very few people who would opt to care for it.

     << Brian >>

-- 
_/_/_/       Brian Kendig  Macintosh Jedi           Live never to be ashamed
 _/_/   Starfleet Captain  Oracle Employee         if anything you do or say
  _/  Intrepid Adventurer  Saturn SL2 Owner    is published around the world
      bskendig@netcom.com  Wizard of Frobozz    -- even if what is published
    Princeton '92! BSE/CS  Writer/Actor/Singer                   is not true.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6654 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4979