From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: 7 Jan 93 18:56:11 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Distribution: na
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>In <markp.725732494@dragonfly.wri.com> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) w

]>A woman has the right to avoid conception. Once her voluntary actions
]>have created a human being and placed that human in a position of
]>dependency, she has obligated herself to act in accord with that human's
]>right to life.

Nice big words. Good grammer. Logical sentence construction. Premise
extremely off.

I agree that a woman has the right to avoid conception. That is about
all, however. Now to contend with a whole series of blatant assertions
you make in a single sentence.

1.) I would contest that they are "voluntary" actions for any woman.
    She may have sex, but this does not cause pregnancy, it only enables
    a situation to develop where conception may occur. (Kind of like
    you waving your hand, it can be a good-bye wave, a fanning motion,
    or the slapping of someone in the face.)
2.) She has only created the initial stage of a human being, not a human
    being.
3.) In the first stages of conception, there is no dependency. Witness
    the test tube baby phenomenom.
4.) She has not obligated herself to anything. This is merely your opinion,
    and is fairly misguided at that.
5.) A z/e/f is most definitely not a human, but a human z/e/f. Human
    has the connotations of person. Most do not accept the fact that
    a lump of tissue is a person.
6.) There is no right to life for a z/e/f, or even for a human. If there
    was, anyone who has ever killed anyone else, whether in war or in
    retribution, should stand trial as a criminal.

Would you care to go over your position again, and come up with a statement
that doesn't kowtow to emotionalism or morality?

>But in an earlier post, you said abortion was OK for rape or incest since
>the woman was not pregnant by choice. Assuming she used some method of
>birth control, she is again not pregnant by choice. Will you please make
>up your mind.

This was another point I would like to make with Mark, although I've
seen one or two others ask him something along these lines.

Mark, what is the difference between a z/e/f that was conceived through
a rape, and one that was conceived through "voluntary" actions? Why
is it ok to kill one, and not the other? The only rational behind that
is that it is a punishment for the woman because she consented to sex.
In the case of incest, it is society's ethics that allow it, not to
mention that children conceived of immediate relatives has been taboo
in more societies than I can count, for a much longer time than anyone
is sure of. Pro-lifers in general attempt to place their own religious
morals over those of society, and use flawed arguments similar to those
you've espoused in a general emotional/moral ploy, supported by disin-
formation like yours, to gain some sort of control over others.

Ron
Newsgroups: talk.abortion