From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Don't inhale (was Re: Life at conception...)
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 01:40:28 GMT

In article <24048@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>In article <23768@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wri
>>tes:
>>>In talk.abortion, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>>  bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes everything else:
>
>>>Isn't a grown-up (ie adult, person) more than an entity? I think so,
>>>that's why we call them a person, or similar terms. An entity, as used
>>>here, meant non-person, wich no matter how you weasel, a fetus never
>>>is, nor will be, as when it becomes a person, it is no longer a fetus.
>>>Hence your statement is meaningless to the original statement.
>
>>A fetus is more than just an entity, too, and to equate them as being less
>>than persons, is discrimination.
>
>Then they have been discriminated against since the beginning of time.

Hell, so have a lot of other human beings. Didn't make it right.

I take it that you weren't here when they said it was time that
discrimination came to an end. That was when they were dealing with
sexism. And racism. 

We now have another form of discrimination that needs to come to an
end.

>Not only that, but you are also discriminating against the haploid life.

Haploid life? I thought we were talking about individual, growing
human beings. 

>>The same kind of discrimination that leads friends of yours, like PatricKKK
>>Humphrey, to refer to people like me as "black ass".
>
>Steve, personally, I didn't know till recently that you were black.
>That didn't change, in any way or form, that I thought you acted like
>an ass in more than one posting. As to patrick being a friend of mine,
>whether he is or isn't is none of your business. Do note that those
>you meet on the net cannot be friends until you meet them, although
>friendly acquaintances they can be. (At least not by my definition of
>friends, although that is a rather limited defintion.)

So you say it's none of my business. I will still refer to him as your
"friend" as in "on the same side of this issue." 

Now, I know that's not highly accurate, and probably, referring to
Mark Kaufman as your friend might be horrendously inaccurate, but hey,
we make mistakes. 

Right, PatricKKK? 

>>So what would that prove? 100% of all old people die, but does that make
>>old people non-persons?
>
>100% of life dies, steve, let's not get too asinine.

And when Gregory Clausen writes "Abortion stops a beating heart" and
people respond with "So does steak," that's not asinine? 

Please, Ron Bense, spare me your deluge of hypocrisies. 

>>Deciding personhood over how many of that age group dies, is outrageously
>>stupid.
>
>The section only dealt with the fact that many fetuses die, it did not
>argue over whether that made them persons or not. It just indicated
>that life leading to personhood was an exception, rather than the rule,
>after conception.

Unless we pass the Human Life Amendment, in which case life =
personhood. 

Then this whole argument about how many z/e/f's make it to 9 months
old (which you translate into "birth"), would be moot.  

>>>>How many pregnant women have you talked to, and at what stage?  Feeling
>>>>the late-term baby move around inside can be a very meaningful experience.
>>>>Even just feeling a faint "echo" by putting my hand on my wife's abdomen,
>>>>which is as close as I can get to this, was very rewarding.
>
>[...] deleted statement about removing emotionalism by me. Oops.

Oops is right. Very right. You goofed big time. BUT, let's call the
issue dropped.  

>>Peter Nyikos wasn't the first person to bring up emotionalism in this
>>argument. See the one he was responding to:
>
>>It was you, Bense, who brought it up first. Remember this?
>
>>>>> (for those who would say pregnancy is wonderful, I've
>>>>> never heard a pregnant woman say that,
>
>>You are such a hypocrite.
>
>Coming from you, I'm trembling in fear. I see that you are at least
>trying to use facts, and not outright flaming. Notice that this is a
>negative reference to emotionalism, as in don't bring it up. It's not
>an emotional appeal as in "oh, it's a CuteWarmFuzzyTalkingWalkingEinstein"
>Do you see the difference? I was actual removing an emotional statement
>from the arguement, not using it.

You made the fallacy of making a statement about pregnancy which you
pushed as a generalization, and which someone else came back and
showed you a counterexample. Then, when they did, you hit them with
charges of emotionalism, when their actions were no more emotion -
relevant than your first statement. 

>>And besides, Siamese Twins rely entirely on the other's organs - most
>>particularly, the ones they're sharing - in order to live, 24 hours a day,
>>for several decades. Yet it isn't legal to separate them when one will die.
>
>Umm, this statement is not correct. I would give you a reference, but
>I don't have one handy. I do know that in cases where one twin has more
>of the organs, that it has been decided and done that they were separated
>and the organs given to the one most likely to live. The other was obviously
>left to die, as they were missing a few vitals. I remember reading about
>a case like this just within the last three years, but don't recall
>anything other than the above.

It probably brought prompt legal action and changes within the law and
principles of medicine. 

I got the siamese twins analogy from laws here and other states, where
separation is not legal when one twin wishes to live, or consent is
not given. That state you mention, probably has a Hemlock society in it, 
or something... 

>>It is consistently justifiable to ban the removal of the fetus from the
>>woman's body when s/he must rely on the uterus to survive.
>
>You've never shown this. Please do, so that it can be shown to you where
>your arguement is incorrect. (I know this is assuming that it is incorrect,
>but I've never seen anyone argue this successfully, although I have
>seen good reason for not banning it.)

It is consistent with the principle that one biologically attached
human being (not artificially attached like our pitiful friend the
Unconscious Violinist) cannot be un-attached. A principle set by the
only currently existing example (one of two, that is): Siamese Twins.

>>>>So you don't classify babies about to be born as "anothers", I see.
>
>>>I'm talking about drawing absolute lines, and rational places for them.
>>>What my personal feelings are here were never stated. Why don't you
>>>argue the point, and please leave out all that "FetusIsWonderfulIdolator
>>>GeeIsn'tThatACuteTeddyBearLumpSuckingOutAWomansLifeMass" garbage. (No,
>>>that isn't a drieuxTm quote.:)
>
>>Why don't you stop BRINGING emotionalism into the debate and then crying
>>foul when someone else responds to it?
>
>Steve, last time, I don't bring it in, only attempt to prevent it's
>use, especially when it becomes apparent that a particular paragraph
>will inevitably bring that type of response. (this learned through experience,
>and I'm not looking forward to the next crowd of the uninitiated coming
>to school this fall.) I don't use emotionalism, and lately I try to
>expose it for what it is, when I notice it and deem a response to an
>entire post worthwhile. This generally loses the emotional poster whatever
>point they were trying to make, at least from a logical point. Exceptions
>are like Brian McBean's cousin, which is both a case in point and an 
>emotional issue.

When I play traps like this, Ron Bense, meaning when I fire an
argument and poke explicitly at the possible defense, I am prepared
and I don't whine when that defense is brought up. (Actually, I don't
whine at all - I attack and counterattack, and use hypocrisy to
shortcircuit one's character. Which is what they try to do to me, so
what else is new?) 

What you did was make fun of the pro-life argument pointing to the
humanity of the fetus, and tell pro-lifers that this such effort is
akin to making fetuses look like gods. 
And when someone gets mad about this, which itself is insulting (and
highly emotional, or emotion-provoking), you get on them for being
emotional. 

Once again, you _did_ start the cycle.  

>Ron
>
>Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.


=============================================================================
>##       "My logic is based on ... a religious perspective which says
>##  that personhood begins at birth (actually a month after birth if
>##  we want to be precise)..."
>##    -- Gloria Feldt,
>##       chief executive, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona

>##   "I see nothing extreme or reprehensible about this statement."
>##     -- garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) <BtnDAw.Iwo.2@cs.cmu.edu>
=============================================================================
|Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation   |
|Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   Pro-Freedom of Choice 	Registered Democrat | 
|                                                                           |
|			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          |
|           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn              |
=============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion