From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Don't inhale (was Re: Life at conception...)
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:24:53 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <24048@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wri
>tes:
>>In talk.abortion, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>>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.

But there is the rub, many don't see a fetus as a human being, mainly
because it is lacking in several areas, not just one. The primary reason,
traditionally, is because there was a very real chance that the fetus
would never make it past infanthood, due to illness, trauma during birth,
weakness from any of several causes, and for no apparent reason at all
(probably thought at the time as "god calling them home"). Now that
most infants can be cared for and the mortality rate has dropped considerably
although SIDS is still unexplained and unpreventable, the thought is
that infants are now human beings. The *main* difference between an
infant and a fetus is that one is immediately and irrevocably dependent
on *one* other person, the mother, which is unique in the development
stages, and therefore it is not considered a human being (which implies
person, btw, in the manner you used it.). An infant, although not being
capable of thought per se, or many other things normally attributed
to human beings, is considered one because it is independent (in the
sense that anyone can take care of it, unlike a fetus).

>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.

I was personally using discrimination earlier as in deciding between,
or making a decision about, not the sexist or racist type you brought
up. I discriminate every day between vegetables, as I can't stand cooked
ones, and prefer them slightly cooked ar raw, so that they retain their
crispness. This is discrimination, but not the type you'd like to label
me with.

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

Just your opinion. My question to you would be: "you want to start one
form of discrimination to aleviate what you perceive as another. How
do you reconcile this with ourself in discriminating against a real,
live, sentient person over something that is the equivalent of a worm?"

This will be interesting to see.

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

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

You're claiming that haploid life is not human? Or they aren't people,
as such? Many claim that fetuses aren't human beings (persons) either,
as certain tumor cells (mutated from a person so as to have a different
DNA set) can form viable fetuses while zygotes can form certain types
of tumor cells. So are tumor cells people? Or are fetuses tumor cells?
Or is the answer that they are a stage of human life that is different
than the final stage (namely that of a person)?

>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.

Do what you wish. It's not worth starting any kind of splutter over.

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

Abortion does not always stop a beating heart. Especially if people
like CLausen would supprt use of Ru-486, which acts in a much earlier
time frame than an abortion can be done. Of course, that takes the wind
out of his sails, so he opposses that too, for some unknown reason.

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

Where?  Do you see even one? (a deluge, a wonderful word, if used correctly.:)

>>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.

Steve, whether it passes or not still will not change the statistics.
Even if you succeed in legalizing this change in the definition of person,
all you've done is either discriminate against all other intelligent
life, or made being a person a worm's lot in life. Logic obviously does
not play in the HLA. And what would happen to those women who miscarry
because they were negligent? Would they suddenly become first degree
muderers?

>>>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.

No, because without the surgery, both would have probably died. The
odds being what they were, they decided to separate based on which had
the most organs and was most likely to survive. I think they did, and
it was hailed as being a success. I thought it sort of a lose-lose
situation, no matter what you did, the likelihood was that you were
going to lose at least something.

>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...

This was done shortly after birth, not on two who've grown-up together,
and would now require one to make a sentient sacrifice for the other.
Although people have been known to do this, such as soldiers taking
a shot to save a friend, etc.

>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.

This is a principle you hold, but holds no truth other than what you
assert it does. As has been shown, Siamese twins can be separated with
no legal response, other than to note that one died.

>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.

But you've never shown a rational reason for banning abortion for any
reason other than religious or religious steeped feelings. *No* logical
reason has ever been forthcoming why a fetus, a non-sentient being,
has rights that over-ride those of a sentient being (the mother).

>Once again, you _did_ start the cycle.

Blatant assertion. WHat exactly are you accusing me of starting?

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34642 misc.legal:16861