From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: re: Who is this Reference? -- We need a new Subject line.
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:19:06 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20


Jimmy an' me:
>>[lots from Adreinne on the lost potential of eggs and sperm that goes
>>[away naturally.]
>>  Before I start, I found it somewhat amusing you chose to name some of
>>the eggs in your example.  Meanwhile, many of your compatriots get downright
>>nasty when someone uses the world "child" or "baby" (God forbid a name) as 
>>opposed to fetus.  Just an observation.

>Hey, Jimmy, so do I (get downright nasty, that is).  I think that kind of
>stuff is an emotional appeal, and you are quite right to point out that I
>probably used it as such.  

 I include this only because it's about the only thing I've ever gotten
Adrienne to concede to me.  A red letter day, even for so minor a point!
8^) (It's a sucky day at work--forgive me for this little childishness.)

>>  Come on Adreinne, we can always use a little more magic! 8^)

>Not without counting the cost.  The 'magic' we consider life to be is not
>free.  In the abstract, life's just great, just as we can observe that in
>the abstract, cancer is pretty facinating stuff, too.  Place both life and
>cancer into their contexts, however, and there are other facets you have to
>take into account.  The problem I have with pro-life persons, whether they
>are politically pro-life or personally pro-life, is that the examination of
>the context, and the costs, is so often missing from their analysis.

 I have upon occasion expressed a suggestion on how to to deal with the 
economics, at least.  (Kill the B-2! Please! Among other things...)  I
have looked at those costs too, and have decided one be convinced that
they are worth it.  That's a judgement call--one thing we happen to agree on.

>I think no traffic accidents would be a good idea, too.  But the cost is
>so high it ain't going to happen.

 Like most things, the first 90% of a solution is cheap.  It the last 10%
that gets expensive.  I have accepted the fact that 10% is always gonna
be there until some new technology comes along to change the cost curve.

>>I don't see a single solitary reason to bind the real, thinking, breathing
>>woman, who is a miracle in her own right, based on my notion of potentiality.
>  There's that word, "bind".  Please don't use it.  I'm not binding anyone.

>Well, this is a public forum.  I am talking not merely to you, Jimmy, or we
>could have done this via e-mail.  BTW, I believe I was also in the middle of
>expounding upon *my* views, independent of your views, therefore there is
>no implication, period, to your views.

 I know that.  You know that.  Its the rest of the world that concerns me.
I'll just have to remember to always cut that stuff out.

deletions...
>>  However, there IS a difference between the potential represented by the 
>>individual sperm/egg and the two together in fertilization.  No sperm or egg,
>>alone, can develop into much of anything.  They sit and wait and go away.
>>  But then they get together.  Suddenly they are not sperm and egg, separate
>>and unique, but Something Else.  They are not the same thing.

>I don't think that's a distinction that's worth making.

 Well, I do.

[deletions]
>Once
>fertilized, it then has this interesting implanation process, and then it
>just sort of sits there (which, according to your statement above, would
>seem to make it less incredible(-:). 

 *Chuckle*  Not bad, but of course, it doesn't "just sit there", as we well
know.  There's a certain amount of growth and development going on...

>Certainly they aren't 'the same' thing.  None of the pieces are the 'same'
>from one to another.  The nutrients the developing egg receives from the
>mother isn't he 'same' thing, either.  But it's pretty magical.

  Wouldn't entirely disagree with that last sentence.  Or entirely agree, 
either.

>>  We can equate the various forms of contraception with abortion only so far
>>as that they prevent a baby/fetus/insert-your-favorite-term-here from being 
>>born.  Before fertilization, there is no magical potential to worry about--
>>it's pointless to shed a tear for the millions of sperm that don't make the 
>>journey (and a major reason why I find religious objection to contraceptives
>>goofy).  
>>  After, we are no longer discussing preventing something that happens pretty
>>rarely (from the standpoint of the eggs and sperm) anyhow.  Once implanted, 
>>its a pretty safe bet that, barring unseen complications or outside interfe-
>>rence, said sperm/egg combo will emerge in about 9 months as a baby.

>The experts on the subject disagree on how many fertilized eggs actually
>sponaneously abort, but the low estimate is over 30%.  The high estimate is
>over 60%.  It is not 'a pretty safe bet'.

 After implantation or before?  My impression has been "before", but hey, I
try to live in the real world...

>Is it like your belief that education was the key, only to find out that
>the stats seem to show we have more unwanted pregnancies even with 'perfect'
>knowledge than we have abortions (or 'damage control')?

 This has not been demonstrated adequately for my taste.  The numbers appear to
support that, but it is unlikely they are a *complete* reflection of the 
reality.  But I freely concede that things were not so easy as I had presumed.

>Maybe you need to read up on it a little more....

 Working on it.

>>1.  The sperm and egg, separately, do represent a certain potential, but this
>>    potential is much farther removed from the actual than the implanted z/e/f.
>>    Alone, nothing happens.

>Sez you.  I think this is a peculiarly skewed way of looking at it, myself.
>To me, the sperm and the egg are even MORE unique than the fertilized egg.
>They alone are haploid cells, with a specific, unique purpose.  You really
>kind of minimize the specialness of these very different cells here, to 
>match your particular philosophy.  Is that simply because there are more of
>them?

  Indeed, sez me.  I was talking potential here, not uniqueness.  I minimize
the potential, not the "specialness" or "uniqueness".  Should I pine for
the very special and unique t-cells too?  Not by my lights.  They lack the
same potential for devlopment that unfertilized eggs and sperm do.  The latter
are indeed much higher on the list, however.

  And why should I not minimize the importance of certain cells?  You minimize
that of a fetus.

>>2.  Abortion is wasteful of a far more likely potential, regardless of whether
>>    or not other, more removed, potentials are also "wasted".

>Scuse me, but what is 'more' about potential?  Is a 1 week abortion 'better'
>than a 6 week abortion?  

  Elementary.  More potential, or more likely potential, is just that.  Surely
you can see where something A can have more potential than something B.  As
for the second question, from a loss of potential viewpoint, yes.

>>4.  I believe waste is always a bad thing.  Some waste is unavoidable, some
>>    is not.  Abortion is an avoidable waste, and I regard it as wrong because it
>>    represents a qualitative waste of potential far and above the quantitative
>>    loss of sperm and eggs.

>Well, your opinion is your own, of course, but I think this is foolish.  
>If abortion is the choice for a teen who then goes on to have three healthy
>children in her adulthood, how can you call that a 'waste'?  

 Easy.  It's a waste.  Pretty rough on the kid-that-wasn't.  Glad my birth
mother didn't feel that way.  I'm adopted.

[consequences deleted]

You don't really know how any of these equations play out, and of course
>neither do I.  

  Nope.  I only know how MY half of the equation played out.  I rather like it.
I'm glad no one chose to subtract me out of it, either.

>But don't discount the economic, social and personal costs in-
>volved.  

  I don't, though that seems to surprise you.

>Abortion can just as easily be a "good" thing as a "bad" thing 
>because there are many *other* potentials that can be wasted during an
>unwanted pregnancy.  MANY others.  

 Only one waste is Guarunteed by an abortion.  Only one.

>I'll point out that nearly as many women
>each year happen to think it's better than pregnancy as those women who figure
>pregnancy is OK.  

 This make it so?

>I think they feel there are other potentials, other          
>priorities, other magic that needs doing instead.  

 No doubt.

>In most cases, pregnancy is renewable.  One's college education, one's job 
>experience, one's windows of opportunity, etc., may not be.

 Pregnancy need not = parenthood for the birth mother who chooses not to abort.
And I find the thought of this kind of a waste for the purposes of career 
enhancement/advancement repugnant beyond belief.

>>  In short, contraception and abortion are NOT the same thing, although one may
>>reasonably argue they have the same net affect.  Of course, if net effect were
>>all that concerned us, child abandonment and/or infanticide would not be reg-
>>arded as such a heinous crime (by US culture).

>Not anybody with much upstairs.  This again would be arguing in a vacuum,
>without any regard for the social, economic and personal issues.  Let's not
>and say we did.
>Adrienne Regard

  So you say that abortion and contraception do NOT have the same net effect
(prevention of births as an ultimate effect)?  Or are you simply repeating
the assertion that they are the same thing?  I assume it's the latter.  
  Ignoring the means we use to achieve some desired effect is a dangerous
notion, Adrienne.  Don't you agree?  I certainly don't ignore that concern
in my stance.  No vacuums here.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
*             *********************************************		       *
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame