From: lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Loren Finkelstein, dictator, decides limits of religious freedom.
Organization: Clark University
Date: 16 DEC 92 07:02:32 GMT

In a previous article, chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) wrote:
>In <14DEC92.21004172@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>In a previous article, chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) wrote:
>>>In <11DEC92.05351754@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>>
>>>Throughout our recent exchanges, I've been trying to get an
>>>answer to a single question. It's a fairly complicated question,
>>>though, and I don't think that I've done a good job of
>>>communicating my intent to you.
>>> 
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>My point is that when you say "It's wrong to kill a zygote
>>>because it's a person", all you're really saying is "It's
>>>wrong to kill a zygote because it's wrong to kill a zygote."
>>>What I've been trying to do is to get you to expand on that.
>>>_Why_ is a zygote a person? What criteria do _you_, _yourself_ 
>>>use to tell whether it is wrong to kill something or not?
> 
>>Except, I wasn't defining "person" as "that which it is wrong to kill".  I was 
>>(perhaps incorrectly) using person synonomously with human being.
> 
>This is some kind of cruel joke, isn't it? You're just going to
>say "It's wrong to kill a fetus because it's a person because
>it's a human being because it's wrong to kill it because it's
>a fetus," over and over again, while I frantically try to find
>a re-phrasing of my question that you'll be able to understand.

Are you defining human being as "that which it is wrong to kill?"  


>   1) What quality do human beings possess that makes it wrong to
>      kill them?

There is no one quality that makes us "wrong to kill".  There is no one 
quality that makes us human beings.  It is a whole bunch of things, some of 
which are not quantifiable.  I just don't think that 
age/maturity/state-of-development is one of them.

>   2) Do any human beings lack this quality? (This would imply that
>      it's not wrong to kill them.)

Again, there is not any one quality.  However, there are people who forfeit 
their right to live under certain circumstances.  Specifically by taking that 
specific right from others (Killing them, intentionally)

>   3) If my answers to the first two questions turn out to be
>      different from your answers, do you have any kind of rational
>      argument that might convince me that your answers are better 
>      than mine?
> 
>>>[On 14-year-old rape victims not being allowed to have abortions.]
>>>
>>>Do you really believe this?
> 
>>Yes, I do.  Are you going to tell me that all rape victims have abortions?  If 
>>not, are you saying that the ones who don't always hate the child?  I submit 
>>that is is possible for someone to love such a child.
> 
>OK. Under current law, some pregnant rape victims have abortions,
>and some don't. All other things being equal, the ones that want
>abortions, have abortions. The ones that don't want abortions,
>don't have abortions. That seems fair.
> 
>You, on the other hand, want to change the law so that none of
>them would be allowed to have abortions. This would undoubtedly 
>cause a certain amount of suffering.

Actually, the suffering is already going on.  Making abortion illegal would 
only eliminate "the easy way out".  It is the same as taking drugs away from 
an addict.  Yes, they will suffer, but the person removing the drugs is not 
responsible for that suffering.  The person who got the victim hooked is 
responsible. 


> 
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>And, of course, I'm still a bit hazy on the difference between
>>>the "future happiness" of a zygote, and the "future happiness"
>>>of an unfertilized egg. 
> 
>>An unfertalized egg, on it's own, left in it's environment, will not grow into 
>>a human adult.  A fertalized egg will.
> 
>Well, let's see...
> 
>An unfertilized egg has a few different environments. It starts its
>life in the ovaries, and later migrates through the fallopian tubes
>and into the uterus. Now, the interesting thing about the uterus
>is that it sometimes has sperm cells in it. Therefore, an unfertilized
>egg, on its own, left in its environment, can in fact grow into a
>human adult. It's not 100% certain, but it isn't 100% certain that
>a given fetus will survive to adulthood either.

That is why I specified the difference between a fertalized egg, and an 
unfertalized one.  An unfertalized egg will neververrow into a human adult.  
It may become fertalized, but then it wouldn't be unfertalized. 


Xref: sparky talk.abortion:51806 alt.abortion.inequity:5855