From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 22:10:56 GMT

franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <1992Apr7.185217.15334@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer) writes:

>>So basically you're saying that it is so because you believe it to be
>>so and because the church says so.

>   No... I'm saying that you haven't given the unborn fetus a chance
>to decide. Forget the church's say, forget my say, but listen to the fetus.
>You know what? You can't... So, I say it is not our position to judge the
>status of the fetus. The fact that the population is so divided on the
>status of the fetus should be sufficient to show us we cannot end it's 
>existence. 

"The fact that the population is so divided on the morals of abortion should
be sufficient to show us we cannot end its availability."

Next case, bailiff...

>Until a unanimous decision arises that the unborn fetus
>is not a sentient being with rights, then we cannot afford to abort the
>fetus. Otherwise, as long as the decision is split, there are many out
>there that see it as murder.

Steve, virtually every decision in the world has a certain lack of consensus
behind it.  Lots of people saw the killing of civilians in the Gulf War as
murder on a grand scale; yet I don't see you arguing that since THAT decision
was split, and some saw it as murder, that war should be made illegal.

I take the opposite tack.  There is no evidence for a fetus in the early
stages of a woman's pregnancy (certainly the first trimester and early in
the second) being a sentient being, or being a person by most people's
definitions.  There is evidence--*strong* evidence--for the burden pregnancy
can and usually does place on a woman, whom you habitually ignore in your
arguments.  The rights of a living, breathing, functioning person with
already-existing rights and responsibilities, in my opinion, far and away
outweigh any possible rights the fetus could have.  

You're arguing from a religious viewpoint, and claiming that since we 
can't disprove your *opinions*, abortion should be illegal.  

Well, I'm arguing from an atheistic and secular-humanistic viewpoint.  I
claim there is no God.  You can't prove me wrong, I can't prove you right.
But I don't try to limit your right to freedom of religion.

>Ahhh - here we go - Just what I was waiting for. A hack at the church's
>credibility. Don't bother tackling arguments and concepts, but go for
>character assasination. I'm starting to feel a bit like Clarence Thomas...

You should in one respect; you appear to share his respect for women.  I
fail to understand how questioning the credibility of a source *known* to
have been wrong in the past constitutes character assassination.  There are
plenty of examples of *real* character assassination on t.a. to satisfy anyone
without extending the definition in rather bizarre fashions.

>   steve (who's beginning to feel outnumbered 8)    )

As someone else (sorry, I've forgotten whom :-) ) has said, Steve, it's because
you are.  Greatly.  And you will continue to be.

Tim Lynch (Cornell's first Astronomy B.A.; one of many Caltech grad students)
BITNET:  tlynch@citjuliet
INTERNET:  tlynch@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP:  ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.caltech.edu@hamlet.caltech.edu
R.I.P. Isaac Asimov, 1920-1992.  You will be missed.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion