From: purdon@cons1.mit.edu (James Purdon)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Survey...
Date: 28 Jul 92 22:16:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: .

In article <64456@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>After reading t.o off and on for a while, I thought I'd try
>to better understand how people (especially non-pro-lifers) 

Why do I find myself doubting your sincerity?

>look at the issues.  I'd like to conduct a poll - one can
>post to t.o or mail to myself - I haven't planned to summarize
>the results.  I just want to get a feel for things. 

I think you should summarize the results.  Otherwise, I fear we will
find ourselves observing the construction of numerous strawmen and
inflammatory statements based on the response of one aberrant
individual.

>If you will allow me, I'll pose my thoughts on why I'm perplexed.

How can we stop you?  If we stoically bear the likes of Stephen "pro-lie"
Chaney, how can we be offended by your little quiz?

>I have heard some infer that the unborn is life and they don't
>care, some say that the joy of being pregant and the desire to
>abort is dependent on whether the mother wanted a baby, etc.

So?  Have you ever watched the face of a teenage girl upon being told
that she is pregnant?  Often times the expression one sees is one of
fear, not joy.  

Why are you unwilling to accept the testimony of individuals who
ahve been pregnant and obtained abortions as evidence of their
feelings?  After all, you accept the existance of your god on
much less.

>I guess where I'm puzzled it that if one believes that the unborn
>is a life, then it should be beyond them to say abortion is OK.

A chicken is a life, and yet some of us happily kill them and eat them.
Men, women, and children are lives, yet some of us happily kill them as
well.  Many of us pay good money to watch fictional dramatizations of
such killing. One of us, in fact, is so enamored of the idea that for a
while he pretended to be a jet plane that had performed such killings
and issues regular death threats (though he is quick to back peddle when
confronted).  Why are you puzzled?

>Please leave the header alone for responses to the poll and change 
>it to something else if you want to discuss or dispute anything.
>If there are other questions you'd like asked or think I should
>have used, email me at rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu - thanks.

I think not.

>Note: part 'a' of the question deals with the unborn and part 'b' 
>is related, but applies regardless of the answer to part 'a'.
>OK, so here are my questions:
>
>FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SURVEY, FOR ALL QUESTIONS, CONSIDER ONLY PREGNACIES
>THAT ARE NOT CAUSED BY RAPE OR INCEST AND DO NOT THREATEN THE PHYSICAL
>LIFE OF THE MOTHER.

Absolutely not.  Apparently you live in some fairy world where rape,
incest, and life threatening pregnancies do not exist, but I live in
the real world, and decide such issues on the basis of reality.  I
don't see how you can hope to understand your opponents' thoughts if
you insist on creating an artifical scenerio.

>1) a)Do you believe the unborn entity constitutes a life? (y/n/?)

Sure thing (that's a yes), as long as it is composed of living cells.

>   b)At what point does life begin?
>                   (0-9 month of gestation, birth, 0-9 months post birth, etc.)

Life as we know it began perhaps more than a billion years ago and has
continued in an unbroken chain to the present day.  Sperm and ova are
alive because their parents were alive, and the product of their union 
is alive because they were alive.  Even the freshly dead are still
mostly alive.  In addition, the quality of life is not exclusively
limited to humans (in case you had forgotten).

Really, I thought Pasteur had settled this long ago.

>2) a)Do you believe the unborn entity has any rights? (y/n/?)

It has the same rights as the sperm and ova from which it was formed have.

>   b)At what point do rights begin?
>                   (0-9 month of gestation, birth, 0-9 months post birth, etc.)

There is no one point at which rights begin. Because rights are only
conceptual entities, it is nonsense to speak of them as if they were
somehow part of human ontogeny. Rights can only be said to begin
when one becomes aware of them and attempts to exercise them. 

>3) a)Is the unborn a person (similar, but for a better understanding)? (y/n/?)

It depends on the definition of personhood one adopts. If the definition
requires sentience, then no.

However, if the definition does not include sentience and is of such a
nature that zygotes are included, then sperm, ova, and tissue cultures
are probably included as well.

>   b)At what point does personhood begin?
>                   (0-9 month of gestation, birth, 0-9 months post birth)etc.)

If personhood is based on sentience, it slowly develops over the course
of the life of an individual, baring accidents or major disfunctionality.
Some individuals attain it early in life, others may never attain it.

On the otherhand, if one adopts a definition of personhood that is
closely tied to life, then personhood doesn't begin, but is passed
on from generation to generation.  However, I doubt that such a 
definition could be restricted to human beings alone.

Don't ask me to explain oxymorons like "dead person", though.

>4) a)Should abortions be restricted based solely on the amount of 
>     time since conception? (y/n/?)

No, if "restricted" means "prohibited".  However, it is certainly
acceptible in my eyes to adopt regulations in regard to minimum
clinical standards that are linked to presumed fetal age, in order
to protect the life of the woman involved. 

>   b)At what point should abortions be restricted? 
>                   (0-9 month of gestation, birth, 0-9 months post birth, etc.)

A woman should be able to obtain an abortion whenever she requires or
desires one.  After all, it is her bodily autonomy that is being
compromised by the growing fetus.

By the way, I'm ignoring your nonsense suggestion that one can be aborted
after birth.

>5) Should viability (as provided by advanced technology) be the basis
>   of whether an abortion is morally ok?  (y/n/?)

No, although viability may be used to determine whether or not it would
be meritous to attempt to save the life of an aborted fetus, as long as 
such an attempt did not impact the mother's welfare (in all senses of
the word) or her ability to obtain an abortion in a timely fashion was
not removed.

As far as I'm concerned, fetal death is an unfortunate side effect of
abortion.

>6) Is it morally wrong to abort 
>   a) a life? (y/n/?)

No. 

>   b) a person? (y/n/?)

If sentience is the standard by which personhood is defined, it is
impossible to abort a person.  If sentience is not the standard, then
no.

>   c) a viable life? (y/n/?)

No. However, it might be meritous to save the life of an aborted fetus,
provided that the mother's welfare (in all senses of the word) was not
compromised and her ability to obtain an abortion in a timely fashion was
not removed.

>   d) because of the mother's desires? (y/n/?)

No.

>7) Should it be legally wrong to abort 

You mean "illegal", not "legally wrong", I hope.  "Legally wrong", in my
eyes is the same as "legally immoral".  I should hope you're not intending
to legislate morality.

>   a) a life? (y/n/?)

No.

>   b) a person? (y/n/?)

If sentience is the standard by which personhood is defined, it is
impossible to abort a person.  If sentience is not the standard, then
no.

>   c) a viable life? (y/n/?)

No.  However, in my eyes the state may attempt to preserve a viable fetus
as long as its attempt does not prohibit the mother from obtaining an
abortion in a timely fashion (with the mother determining the timeliness),
does not endanger her life more than an abortion without the attempt would, 
and does not economically or emotionally impact her beyond what it would
if the state did not make the attempt.

>   d) because of the mother's desires? (y/n/?)

No.

>FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SURVEY, FOR ALL QUESTIONS, CONSIDER ONLY PREGNACIES
>THAT ARE NOT CAUSED BY RAPE OR INCEST AND DO NOT THREATEN THE PHYSICAL
>LIFE OF THE MOTHER.

As I said, I'm ignoring this restriction.

>Thank you for your time.

I notice that you didn't once mention the rights of the mother.  Was
this oversight intentional or are you truely blind to the existance
of the woman that surrounds that fetus you claim to care so much about?

>Sincerely,
>Richard Pitts
-- 
Jim

Once I was single.  Now I am married.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion