From: jamcdani@zia.. ("jennifer mc daniel")
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:50:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: bronze.1992Apr8.165010.4966
Distribution: na
Organization: Indiana University

In article <1992Apr8.011210.18193@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve  
Franklin) writes:
> In <1992Apr7.185217.15334@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>  
rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer) writes:
> 
> >franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) 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...

I totally agree with that, my friend. The thing is, IF the fetus had  
developed a brain to assess the situation within and outside the woman's  
body, some of them just may decide that they do not want to be born.  

> 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. 

No, it should be sufficient to show us we cannot force the woman to  
continue a pregnancy she may not want, and force the fetus into an  
existence that _it_ may not want (if it had a brain to decide).

> 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.

Until you can ask a fetus whether it wants to be born, we cannot afford to  
force it to be born possibly against its wishes and definitely against  
those of the woman (whose choices we can know).
 
> 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... Character assassination is one thing, but lowering an entire 
> group by it's beliefs from hundreds of years ago, and even by other 
> individuals in the past decade is pathetic. I truly thought it was 
> beneath you.

I have no problem with your beliefs, and make no attempt to assassinate  
the character of either you or your fellow Catholics. I just have a  
problem with your idea that every single unborn baby wants desperately to  
enter this playground of a planet.... 
 
>    So, if I could show you all of the corruptible evidence within
> the American government, would that prove to you that democracy is
> not any good, and should be done away with in the American society 
> as we know it? Let good ol' anarchy reign? My friend, judging a 
> message by the people who carry it, (even 500 years ago for crying out
> loud!) is pathetic. Just pathetic. I'm embarassed for you but will 
> assume you don't make such flaws in logic often...

The negative evidence should make those members of a society want to  
modify it for the better. Since I am not a Catholic, I cannot and will not  
make recommendations as to how to make a "better" RCC. I agree with the  
rest of the paragraph (the RCC and everyone else did eventually trash the  
heliocentric view, so let's not worry about it now).
 
> >I might point out that I can build a machine that moves and sucks its
> >thumb.  These attributes would hardly make it human, however.  And if
> >I put a petri dish with some living tissue inside it, it would also
> >have some genetic material in it.  As for dreaming - how can you tell?
>    What a poor analogy... Doesn't merit me responding. Unless your 
> machine has millions of responsive synapses which respond to it's 
> environment. The ability to reproduce, a beating heart, 
> thermo-responsive cells, responds to pain, etc etc etc... That's what 
> makes the difference between man and machine. Although I must say, my 
> macintosh seems to be a little more intelligent than some of your
> remarks...hmmmmm
> 
>    steve (who's beginning to feel outnumbered 8)    )

Guess what? You are.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jenni McDaniel, Indiana University, Department of Psychology
"All we ever look for: a god...a drug...a great big hug." -KaTe Bush
 Big ol' IU taking the opinions of one undergrad?!? Yeah, right....
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity