From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:37:27 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Richardson TX

In article <1684FFE26.JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Joseph L. Lockett) writes:
>From: JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Joseph L. Lockett)
>Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
>Date: 26 Aug 92 23:04:19 GMT

>exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) and I exchange:
> 
>>>What evidence do you have that an aborted fetus would feel it the same
>>>way as I?  Over-anthropomorphism seems a common fallacy here....
>>
>>I have no more evidence than you.  Which was exactly my point.  We are
>>subjecting a fetus to something we have not ourselves experienced.
> 
>And my objection is that we have good reason to doubt whether the fetus
>WOULD, in fact, experience it in the same way.  

What good evidence is that?

>If we're talking first
>trimester, 

I'm not, are you?

>then the nervous systems and reactions are simply not comparable.
>Propaganda like "Silent Scream" to the contrary, fetuses may well not feel
                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That sounds pretty certain.  

>what we would describe as pain when aborted.  Likewise, we may question
>how much brainpower they have to appreciate the sensation.  

>Do you eschew
>exterminators, Mr. Taylor, lest the cockroaches suffer?

That's an interesting statement.  Here's a guy that compares human fetuses
(foeti?) to cockroaches.  No wonder he's pro-choice.

>>Bull.  My point was clear in the context.  We are quite capable of providing
>>for children as a society.
>>I will agree that the point is to prevent the misery, but not by committing
>>what may very well be another misery.
> 
>"As a society"?  Well, given high enough taxes (or would 'tithes' be more
>in line?) perhaps we could.  I confess I, at least, and perhaps many others,
>would not feel inclined to subsidize the children others can't take care of.

Why not?  We subsidize all kinds of bullsh*t in IRAQ and IRAN.  We spend
our butts off to help the needy in third-world hellholes.  Why not spend
some at home?

>If you honestly think the Church can take on the responsibility by themselves,
>then more power to them.  But with their own donations, not my tax money.

Can't.  It's everybody's problem, and everyone should help.  Why do you
think the church should do everything?  Are you above it?

>I find that over-idealistic.  

So were the Wright bros, weren't they?

>But I'll appreciate your efforts.  Barring
>medical reasons, I think abortion is indeed unfortunate.  But leave the
>option open for those who won't or can't agree with you.

It's open right now.  I've already admitted in about 1,000,000,000,000 
posts that among other things, legal won't work.  We have to put them
out of business the old fashioned way - competition!

>>>The array of situations you have to provide for is too
>>>complex -- who is going to make consistent and fair decisions?
>>
>>Guess :-)
> 
>Pbbbbbbbtttttttt.  Are you deliberately trying to be irritating?

In that case, I guess I was.  Tongue in cheek, really.  I actually don't
have an answer for that one yet.

>>And the child.  Who will speak for the effects on her/him?
> 
>Reviewing the above argument, why should we give a parasite, a

Ok, let's get this crap straight once and for all.  Is the pro-choice
position that it is part of the woman's body, or a parasite.  It cannot
be both.

>primitive lump of cells, equal rights to a full and functioning legal
>human entity?  

We have a basic disagreement about what a fetus is, so I don't think we'll
get anywhere on this line.

>You may well argue with me on third or even second
>trimester abortions, which I confess I'm uncomfortable with.  

There's hope for you yet. :-)

>But I
>don't see any problem with aborting a pregnancy in the first three months.
>The fetus is not a child.
> 
>>I don't think religion is ridiculous anywhere.  But then again, you do have
>>to APPLY it with common sense, and a little inspiration :-)
> 
>Inspiration?  I take it you're Baptist, then? :-)  

NO! (Sorry for shouting).  I'm Christian and that's all.  Don't fence me
in :-)

>Actually, I find
>religion a tad ridiculous in matters of multicultural politics.

Yes and no.  I think religion is appropriate to those whom it concerns.
Meaning if I am Christian then I am whereever I go.  I'm not going to leave
it at home, it's not what we're supposed to do.

FOr the longest time (and rightly so IMHO) persons have ridiculed Christians
for not doing what they should by their own creed.  I'm not sure you'll
like it any better, but there's a huge movement in the church now to drop
the games and the crap and start following the word of God.  Scary, isn't it?

>An example -- Jewish religious law REQUIRES an abortion in cases where
>the health, physical OR psychological, of the mother is endangered.  
>So
>banning abortions would constitute a violation of freedom of religion.

Only extremists could possibly want them banned in the above case.  Except
that I'm quite certain that Jewish law does not say psychological anything.

>Whither the religious argument now?

Same place.  They should be entitled to follow their laws.  And we ours.
All of it. :-)

>Joseph L. Lockett
>jlock00@ricevm1.rice.edu
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - D Adams
  - Patrick Taylor
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    alternately, exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org