From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Personhood and interference
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 05:07:27 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Distribution: usa

egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes ...
>In article <07!p7m_.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>> OK.  Without interference an egg will be flushed as part of the monthly
>> period.  Thus, since fertilization is clearly interference by the (would
>> be) parents, they are obligated to restore the natural order by getting
>> an abortion should the egg be inadvertantly fertilized.
>
>Do you believe that there are things such as good and bad interference?

First you create a new definition of "interference" in an attempt to
define personhood, and now that that has failed, you're now going to
come up with good interference and bad interference?

You're building a house of cards, but I'll play along a little
while longer.

>Good interference would be something that should be done.
>Bad interference would be something that shouldn't be done.
>In this case, it would be bad interference if parents wanted the child, but
>had the abortion anyways.

And would it be "good interference" if they didn't want the child and
did have an abortion?

>> Not nearly all fertilizations are successful, and there is no reason to
>> believe that they ever will be.  I don't even consider it very likely.
>
>Why?

Some zygotes are too damaged to survive.  Some embryos have genes to
damaged to successfully build a human being.  And why would anyone
want to go to the considerable expense and time and effort and risk
of trying to ensure the survival of one particular zygote when another
can be made almost for free?  Most of us don't have the $10,000 needed
for in-vitro fertilzation, much less the expense of trying to repair
the chromosomes in a single-celled zygote.

>> Just the first problem to this possibility is the question "why bother?"
>
>There are many parents out there who want children, but cannot have them.

Is this supposed to be a solution?  You can't make babies without 
sperm, egg, and a place to put them.

>> The next is: "Who's paying?"
>
>Why should it matter?  It is a potential problem, but not one without
>solution if people are willing to look for them.

Why should it matter?!?!  Tell you what.  To show you how much it matters
let's perform the following experiment.  You come up with $20,000 or you
die.  You have one week.

And before you dismiss that exercise as being unrealistic, I'll point
out that 30,000 people starve to death each day in the world, and that
$20,000 will both pay for one forced birth, and also keep at least 20
people from starving for another year.  Wealth does not come out of
thin air (as you will discover once you start earning your own living).

>> Why speculate on something that is unlikely to ever occur? 
>
>Ah, but it is likely to occur.  

_Every_ zygote is going to implant?  No matter the initial damage?
No matter the expense?  No matter the wishes of the people?

Because you say so?

>> >Many adults in a coma are like this also.  Would it be ok to kill them?
>> 
>> Such adults are not infringing on any one other person.  Further, in many
>> cases such adults _are_ allowed to die.
>
>Sure they are.  Someone has to take care of them if they are kept alive and
>are therefore infringing on some other person.
>
>But not in all cases...the critical point.

One important difference is that _everyone_ talking care of such a person
is doing so _voluntarily_.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39287 talk.religion.misc:17383