From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In defense of the supposedly indefensible (was Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?)
Date: 6 Oct 92 12:47:10 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, psl@nrl.navy.mil writes:
>In article <25894@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
>writes:
>>In talk.abortion, psl@nrl.navy.mil writes:
>>>In article <25877@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
>>>writes:
>>>>In talk.abortion, psl@nrl.navy.mil writes:
>>...  I have
>>>no objection to using "fetus" as long as you understand that for me it has
>the
>>>same value as a born fetus, as it were.
>>
>>This is a moral stance, and personal opinion. .....I don't subscribe to that
>viewpoint
>>either, and oppose laws based on those opinions and morals.
>
>I agree that I too would resent laws imposed upon me based someone else's
>morality.  My view that the fetus, both born & unborn, has the same value, is
>NOT a moral issue for ME. A combination of logic, consistancy and science lead

It may not seem a moral issue to you in your opinion, but your opinion
is no more valid than mine, that it is a moral issue for you, and hence
meaningless. We can argue it all day, but you must admit it is really
opinion, or proffer proof that a human being exists at conception in
the pro-life sense. No one has yet succeeded, so my question to you
is since we both agree that we should err on the side of cautioun (I
assume you are, anyway) why should we value an entity which is questionably
human over a woman who is undeniably human? I say that to err on the
side of caution would be to allow the woman to decide.

>me to no other conclusion.  I have been listening to the debate both here and
>elsewhere for a long time, and not once have I seen consistant criteria for the
>determination of "personhood".  Most are based upon only an arbitrary subset of
>the factors that are used by society.  I don't necessarily feel you are immoral
>for being for the right of abortion, only sadly mistaken.

I'm still working on just this little philosophical problem. Give me
a little time, I promised Peter Nyikos that I would post this in time,
and I forgot who, but some moron who tried to blow it off that he should
be worried that I might post something tomorrow, etc. It's coming along,
but I'm still working out flaws that I see in the statements I have
so far.

>...used by everyone in this society, yourself included.  The difference is you
>feel that morality stops at the womb, for me it is at conception.

I feel it stops when one entity imposes on another, with no hope of
immediate relief. A baby can always be handed to someone else for a
period of time, and then reclaimed, a fetus can not.

>>Before this time, the fetus can't live on its own, so the case is moot.
		       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>This is an example of what I consider a "subset" of the factors which determine
>personhood.  Living on one's own is not a sufficient criterion for personhood
>and visa versa.

But not living off someone else as a literal parasite is. Show me one
person who is living off the blood, nutrients, and bodily functions
of another, directly, and inhabiting their body. I think you'll find
exactly none. (That is accepted and general usage of the word person,
not the extended pro-life view, unless you can logically extend it to
caover a fetus.)

>"Belittled" may not be the right word, but you sure are leaving out the case of
>a mother who definitely feels in her heart that the fetus IS a person at that
>stage and who, NEVERTHELESS, decides to have an abortion for non-medical
>reasons.  This does qualify as an immoral act, if taking a life is defined as
>immoral.

YOu can judge, if you so desire. I believe in allowing the woman to
make the decision for whatever reason she feels necessary. Why should
her life be compromised because you, or someone else, places her on
a guilt trip and forces her to go against her decision?

>This is exactly what I hope will come to pass.  The distinction between
>"traditional" and "pro-life" is, in my opinion, a fictitious one, due to
>wishful thinking and blissful ignorance.

Contrary to your opinion, I believe the pro-life position is one of
"wishful thinking and blissful ignorance" with "wishful" and "blissful"
taking on extended connotations.

>I think you might want to reconsider the last statement.  You are willing to
>take away a womens discretion (choice) based upon technology. Namely you are
>not giving her the right to change her mind after willfully conceiving a child.
> This is an interesting middle ground.

I said we can discuss it. I didn't summarily give you permission to
do with it what you wish. There is a difference there, you know.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion