From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 22:13:54 GMT

In article <07!p7m_.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> 
> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu writes ...
> >In article <-50nk1h.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> >>egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes ...

> >>A zygote left in the woods will never develop into a human child.  So?
> >>If you're going to add arbitrary qualifications than so will I.  In fact,
> >>many human eggs DO develop into human adults.
> >
> >That is a case of interference with what would happen.  Not what I am talking
> >about at all.  If you dont' understand what I am saying, let me know and I will
> >expand further.
> 
> 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?

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.

> >>>> Fertilization isn't any guarantee of reproductive success-- 2/3
> >>>> of fertilized eggs naturally fail to develop, for various
> >>>> reasons.  Implantation isn't any guarantee of success either.
> >>>> I don't particularly value either stage.
> >>>
> >>>That may be true today.  But I would hope that you are aware of research
> >>>that is attempting to make all fertilizations successful.  What happens to
> >>>your arguement when this is the case?
> >>
> >>Well, when pigs fly we'll have to buy stronger umbrellas, and when monkey's
> >>fly out of my ass, I'll go on the Tonight Show and talk to Jay about it.
> >
> >So, what's your point?  I see no relevant one here...please explain.
>  
> 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?

> 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.

> 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 speculate on something that is unlikely to ever occur? 

Ah, but it is likely to occur.  

> More 
> importantly, why base morality or law on the improbable?

But it is not improbable.

> >>>Can you expand upon this concept called "consciousness-capability"
> >>>please...
> >>
> >>Myelenation is the point where myelin forms around the nerves.  Without
> >>myelin, nerves don't work.  MS (or is it ALS?) is a disease involving the 
> >>deterioration of this sheath.  Invariably fatal.
> >>
> >>Before this stage in the development of a fetus, it is clearly incapable
> >>of thought or sensation.  Thus, it becomes a useful measure of human-ness.
> >
> >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.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion