From: JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Joseph L. Lockett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:04:19 GMT
Organization: Rice University

exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) and I exchange:
 
>>What evidence do you have that an aborted fetus would feel it the same
>>way as I?  Over-anthropomorphism seems a common fallacy here....
>
>I have no more evidence than you.  Which was exactly my point.  We are
>subjecting a fetus to something we have not ourselves experienced.
 
And my objection is that we have good reason to doubt whether the fetus
WOULD, in fact, experience it in the same way.  If we're talking first
trimester, then the nervous systems and reactions are simply not comparable.
Propaganda like "Silent Scream" to the contrary, fetuses may well not feel
what we would describe as pain when aborted.  Likewise, we may question
how much brainpower they have to appreciate the sensation.  Do you eschew
exterminators, Mr. Taylor, lest the cockroaches suffer?
 
>>That's a cop-out argument -- the point here
>>is to prevent that misery, not to fix the blame (more 'pro-life' cant?).
>
>Bull.  My point was clear in the context.  We are quite capable of providing
>for children as a society.
>I will agree that the point is to prevent the misery, but not by committing
>what may very well be another misery.
 
"As a society"?  Well, given high enough taxes (or would 'tithes' be more
in line?) perhaps we could.  I confess I, at least, and perhaps many others,
would not feel inclined to subsidize the children others can't take care of.
If you honestly think the Church can take on the responsibility by themselves,
then more power to them.  But with their own donations, not my tax money.
 
>>And as has been abundantly made clear, there aren't enough adoption
>>opportunities to remove the children from unwanted situations -- except,
>>perhaps, in a fool's paradise.
>
>Disagree.  But even if you are right, that can and will be fixed.
 
I find that over-idealistic.  But I'll appreciate your efforts.  Barring
medical reasons, I think abortion is indeed unfortunate.  But leave the
option open for those who won't or can't agree with you.
 
>>The array of situations you have to provide for is too
>>complex -- who is going to make consistent and fair decisions?
>
>Guess :-)
 
Pbbbbbbbtttttttt.  Are you deliberately trying to be irritating?
 
>>No one
>>can.  Leave the decision to the woman who's going to be affected.
>
>And the child.  Who will speak for the effects on her/him?
 
Reviewing the above argument, why should we give a parasite, a
primitive lump of cells, equal rights to a full and functioning legal
human entity?  You may well argue with me on third or even second
trimester abortions, which I confess I'm uncomfortable with.  But I
don't see any problem with aborting a pregnancy in the first three months.
The fetus is not a child.
 
>I don't think religion is ridiculous anywhere.  But then again, you do have
>to APPLY it with common sense, and a little inspiration :-)
 
Inspiration?  I take it you're Baptist, then? :-)  Actually, I find
religion a tad ridiculous in matters of multicultural politics.
 
An example -- Jewish religious law REQUIRES an abortion in cases where
the health, physical OR psychological, of the mother is endangered.  So
banning abortions would constitute a violation of freedom of religion.
Whither the religious argument now?
 
Joseph L. Lockett
jlock00@ricevm1.rice.edu