From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:03:10 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College, Ft. Collins, CO 80523

In article <24987@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
|> In talk.abortion, sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
|>  |>In article <24799@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
|> 
|> 
|> >        Penetrating intellectual analysis at its finest.
|> 
|> At least you posted....
|> 
|>  |> It's not a human being with the connotations I believe you are implying.
|> 
|> >        The unborn child is a living member of the human species.  Mere human
|> >tissue is not a living member of the human species.  I have the proof.
|> 
|> Then why didn't you post it, or would it be shot down by recent experiments
|> that show the interchangeability of certain types of tumors and all
|> fetuses?

	No, it's well-known medical fact.  I'll post it if you like.  BTW, where
are YOUR sources?

|>  |> I didn't realize womb residents had sensibilities, or thoughts or emotions
|>  |> or a host of other personality traits. Could that be because they aren't
|>  |> persons? Naah, that would be self-evident, wouldn't it. :)
|> 
|> >        If reaction to stimuli is the criterion for sensation, then unborn
|> >children have sensations quite early in pregnancy.  I can't give you exact
|> >figures just now, but if you're interested I'll provide them.
|> 
|> So do amoebas, including, if I remember correctly, to light. What's
|> your point? I don't think that mere reaction to stimuli and having human
|> DNA resolves the issue to whether an entity is a person. A dead human
|> will respond to certain stimuli, such as electricity wired to the abdominal
|> muscles to make them sit up, or fart in response to gas build-up in
|> the intestines, yet I think no one will argue that they are persons,
|> although they were, at one time.

	I agree that sensation, in and of itself, is not sufficient for
personhood.  Many things sense, yet are not persons.  But I am not prepared to
assert that a thing which does not, at any given moment, sense, is therefore not
a person.

|> >|> Oh, you're speaking with your fetus-idolator persona. Sorry. Abortions,
|> >|> miscarriages, and deaths will continue despite whatever you legislate.
|> 
|> >        So will other forms of murder.  This does not mean we shouldn't take
|> >steps to prevent it.
|> 
|> How about preventing the root cause? Someone here recently posted that
|> the Netherlands, having an extremely liberal education policy regarding
|> sex and pregnancy, has the lowest abortion rate of any country wherein
|> it is legal, and a bunch where it isn't. Why don't you push for programs
|> that prevent the need for abortion, not legislate abortion itself? After
|> all, a good prgram would also significantly drop all those unwanted
|> children also, so you'd be killing two birds with one stone (pardon
|> the pun) and would be a much more efficient use of your time, and much
|> easier to implement.

	I would support any program I thought would reduce the number of
abortions.  I would support any program that I thought would reduce the number of
rapes.  But I would not, because I support those programs, therefore favor repeal
of rape laws, nor would I stop supporting restrictive abortion laws.

|>  |> Unless, of course, you favor an utopia like "The Handmaid's Tale". Steve,
|>  |> did it ever occur to you that this might merely have been an extrapolation
|>  |> of the religious rights views and statements coupled with past activities
|>  |> sanctioned by the religious right types?
|> 
|> >        Religion has nothing to do with it.  I'm not a religious type 
|> >myself. A human being is created at conception and it continues until
|> >death, regardless of your opinion to the contrary.  This human being
|> >must be recognized as having the same human rights as other human beings;
|> >to do otherwise is arbitrary.
|> 
|> Apparently, a human being is also created with each tumor, yet I don't
|> see you arguing for these to be brought to term. WHy not? Why must they
|> be recognized? WHat precedence is there for recognizing them? And wqhy
|> is it arbitrary?

	A tumor is not a living member of the human species.  Given nutrition, a
tumor will never develop into a mature human being.  Give it up, Ron.  A tumor
and an unborn child are not interchangeable.  Or are you suggesting that if a
tumor were put in the womb, it would develop into a person, just like you or me? 
No?  I thought not.

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.abortion