From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:35:19 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>In article <24987@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) write
>s:
>|> In talk.abortion, sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:

 |> 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, wher
>e
>are YOUR sources?

I will search for them, but they were in the paper within the last 4
months.

>        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 no
>t
>a person.

How about something which doesn't sense, nor has the ability to sense
in the way we are speaking of, iow, basically having 'person'  traits,
and won't until quite a few things change which takes varying amounts
of time? I'd say it isn't a person, but given many months, and a willing
person to carry it to term, then I'd saqy it was definitely on its way
to becoming a person.

 |> 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 repe
>al
>of rape laws, nor would I stop supporting restrictive abortion laws.

Why??? If there is now a situation (hypothetical) wherein all abortions
performed are largely due to contraception failures or medical necessity,
why do you still feel the need to tell others what they cannot do?

>|> 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,
>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.

You thought incorrectly. That is exactly what I'm saying. I'll look
for the source, as mentioned it above, and post it. (or, if someone
has it, go ahead and post, as it will take me a few days.)

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion