From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:42:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.204329.5372@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>In article <490n#c-.bskendig@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian
>Kendig) writes:
>> 
>> Eric writes:
>> >are you saying that baby is not totally and wholly dependent on the
>> >specific person who happens to be taking care of it at the time?
>> 
>> YES!  YES!!!  That's EXACTLY what he's saying!  PRECISELY!  You've GOT
>> it!  He's getting THROUGH!
>
>
>Loose the sarcasam please...it's rather childish.  I have a low tolerance
>for
>people who enjoy acting this way in a serious debate...
>

I for one enjoyed it!  And it was effective in getting through to you.
Did you ever think that Brian wouldn't have said that if you'd cooperate
in this discussion instead if ignoring it?

>Well, then don't you think that's rather silly?  The baby is in fact
>totally and wholly dependent on the specific person who happens to be
>taking care of him/her at the time.  

Eric, eric eric....
The entire point of all of this is this: a fetus is completely dependent
on ONE PARTICULAR PERSON, and that person, save through abortion, is
FORCED to participate in this dependency.  Once birth has occurred,
no one is FORCED to care for a child.  One does so willingly, or transferrs
that dependency to another.  That is one very important difference between
a fetus and a baby.

Can you understand the difference between a pregnant woman having no
choice (save abortion) to care for a fetus and any person having the
choice to care for a baby?

>
>What happens if some disaster occurs and the loving and caring parents are
>not at home and the child is being watched by a baby sitter.  That child is
>totally and wholly dependent on that sitter to save it's life because it
>would surely die if someone did not.

Why is this important?  Can you not follow our logic?  Are you that obtuse?

>
>> If I change a baby's diaper or feed it its bottle, that does NOT mean
>> that the baby is TOTALLY and WHOLLY dependent on me during that time!
>
>Your vision appears to be a bit to narrow.  See above.
>

No, your understanding is definitely narrow.  See above.


>> In fact, if mommy and daddy are sleeping, then NOBODY's taking care of
>> the baby at that time, but the baby still SURVIVES, meaning that it's
>> obviously TOTALLY and WHOLLY dependent on NOBODY!
>
>Sure, for that limited period of time.  But it will always become totally
>and wholly dependent on someone again - which is the critical point.

But the point is...AT NO TIME is a fetus able to survive without that
one particular person to care for it.  A baby, for a time, can survive
on its own.  That is one of the things that qualify it for personhood.
While a fetus and a baby are both humans, one is definitely different
from the other.

Can you fathom that?

Do I have to spoon-feed you some more?

>
>> >Please note, that at no point have I ever said that abortion is totally
>> >out of the question once you have a person.  If you have made that
>> >assumption, it was not correct.  Please be more careful in the future about
>> >the assumptions you make because they just might be wrong as they may have
>> >been in this case.
>> 
>> Whoooa, _Dangerous_ point.  You're rationalizing abortion by saying
>> that a human is always a person, but that sometimes it's okay to kill
>> a person?  Or maybe that some humans are "more of a person" than others?
>
>No.  Ever heard of Self-Defense, for example?  Or clear cases where
>euthanasia
>is permissable.  In these cases, a "person" is still being killed, but
>it is ok.

Okay, college boy..what has the fetus done, if it is a person now, to
deserve killing via abortion?  On what grounds do you argue for the defense
on the self-defense defense?  Euthanasia, also regulated legally, is
not legal in all states--in fact I know of very few states which give
someone the right to terminate another person's life in the manner generally
thought of as euthansia.  Are there any states where you can have someone
"put to sleep"?  I know a bill which would allow physicial-assisted suicide
failed in Washington State, one or our more progressive states with
social issues.

A woman doesn't have to give a reason to terminate her pregnancy.  If the
fetus is given the same rights as my pre-schooler, wouldn't you think
there should be some compelling reason why she should have the right to
kill her fetus?  Like, only to save her life?

You see, if you look at this logically, and you deem the fetus to be a
person, then the ONLY reason you could allow abortion is to save the life
of the woman.  THat is totally and wholly unacceptable to most of us here.
However, if you have no logic then......

> 
>> >All I want to do is find the point at which the fetus must be considered a
>> >person so that any choice the women makes should be made with extreme
>> >caution.
>> 
>> I thought you already said it happens at conception, and that there
>> was no room for argument on that decision?
>
>Oh, there is plently of room...I just haven't been able to find it yet and
>was wondering if anyone else
>could.

You are implying that women who choose abortion do so on the whim! This is
preposterous.  Most women know exactly the implications of their choice
and think about it VERY carefully, long and hard.  For you to imply that
they don't is, well, paternalistic and demoralizing toward women.

Have you ever thought of the consequences if fetuses were made persons?
I know you don't like to talk legalities, probably because you know
nothing about the subject, but like I said above, if a fetus is a person,
then the only reason justifiable by law for abortion is to save the life
of the woman.  And you already know how we feel about that.

Jennifer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion