From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Summary: In this life, things are much harder then in the afterworld... 
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 02:19:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.194251.18052@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.030021.7074@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
>kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>> 
>> In article <1992Sep27.203052.4629@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>> >
>> >It is the start of the process that will result in a newborn child if 
>> >nothing interferes with it's development.
>> 
>> This statement is not correct.  1/2 to 2/3rds of all z/e/f's fail to implaint.
>
>Sorry, let me restate.  
>
>It is the start of the process that will result in a newborn child if 
>nothing happens along the way to prevent this from occuring.  

This statement is not correct.  Even if the egg does implant, there are
dozens of reasons why it may not result in "a newborn child".

I know, I know.  You're now going to say, "But a z/e/f dying because it
has messed up 16th, 17th, and 18th chromosone pairs is *interference*",
at which point we're going to come back full circle to this strange
definition of "interference" you have.

Or as you said above, "nothing happens along the way to prevent this from
occuring".

>
>(Is this ok for me to use in place of interference?)

Not really, because it seems to be as bizzare a concept as your definition
of "interference" is.

>
>> >Before the the moment of conception, nothing exists that could be
>> >considered a person.  The reason for this is because left seperated,
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> 
>> Um, I would certainly think that the *WOMAN* the z/e/f is about to possibly
>> implant in could be considered?  Do you disagree?  Why?
>
>I do not disagree.  In fact, I have stated this (I hope) clearly many
>times.

I must have missed them.  Sorry.

>
>> >the egg or sperm will _never_ develop into a human child.
>>                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^
>> 
>> Why "human child"?  Why not "person"?
>
>I could have said either one, I simply choose the one which is likely to
>cause less disagreement since some people don't think it becomes a person
>even after birth. What's your point?

That your answer sounds contrived.  That if you had said, "...develop into
a person", you would be admitting that even you feel that the z/e/f becomes
a person at some time after conception.  Thanks for answering.

>
>> >I also think that there exists both good and bad interference.  
>> 
>> So, tell me something.  Was Hurricane Andrew "good" or "bad" interference?
>> Was Mount St. Helens "good" or "bad" interference?  Is a miscarriage "good"
>> or "bad" interference?
>
>Accidents or something similiar. 

Nice.  Very nice.  Explain away a hurricane as an "accident".  Tell me, 
what happened to cause this "accident" we call Hurricane Andrew?

Mount St. Helens is just an "oopsie!"
>
>Unless someone caused them to occur.  Then it would be bad.

Tell me, Eric.  How is somebody going to "cause" a hurricane?

>
>> >An example of bad interference would be anything that prevents the fetus
>> >from being born and where cases occur which would result in euthanasia
>> >being permissable.
>> 
>> So if a pregnant woman gets struck by lightning, and has a miscarriage, that's
>> "bad interference"?  I think I see your point here...
>
>See above.
>
>> >An example of good interference would be anything that makes it possible
>> >for the fetus to be born without any cases occuring where euthanasia would
>> >be permissable.
>> 
>> So if a pregnant woman doesn't want to be pregnant, we can strap her down to
>> a table for nine months, force feed her lots of vitamins, etc etc etc, and
>> that "good interference"?  I think I see your point here...
>
>I've never said that the woman should not be considered.  After all she is
>a person also and must be given moral consideration.

No, no, no.  I'm only considering the z/e/f at the moment.  (Forgive me,
Adrienne).

If, for the sake of argument, the pregnant woman wasn't "a person and
therefore does not need to be given moral consideration", it would be "good
interference" to strap her down to a table for nine months, force feed her
lots of vitamins, etc etc etc, to ensure that a bouncing baby is born?

(***DISCLAIMER*** By the above, in no way am I attempting to devalue women,
or the experiences they go through in a "perfect" pregnancy, let alone
the pure hell they can experience in an abnormal pregnancy.  Personally,
I've always been glad that God made sure the stronger of the two sexes
were the ones to bear children).

>
>> >I believe I've followed your ground rules.  If you feel that I haven't
>> >met your conditions, please let me know.  If you have any questions about
>> >what I've said, please ask them.  You are free to show me why any of my
>> >defintions are useless, unclear or not understandable, etc...
>> 
>> Well, you haven't explained why "at conception, a person exists".
>
>I don't know how to explain it any further except to say that it is the
>start of a process that will result in a newborn child if nothing happens
>along the way to prevent it.  If you don't understand this, then please
>point out some problems you see with this and I will try to explain why I
>don't feel they are problems and in that way, maybe you can start to
>understand why I am saying this.

Well, we could talk for a while about your ideas about the phrase "nothing
happens along the way to prevent it".  Then let's discuss "Good
Interference", and "Bad Interference".

>
>We can (I hope) agree that we are both persons.  when did this occur?  I my
>thinking is that is happens when each of us were
>conceived.

And my thinking is that is occurs when each of us was born.  Do you
disagree?  Why?
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=   "Wendy? Yes, Lisa? Is the water warm enough? Yes, Lisa? Shall we begin?"  =
=                                                                     "Prince"=