X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:53:00 EDT
From:         Jeff Shirton <SHIRTON@MCMASTER.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Request for advice

Darryl,

I wrote:

> Medically speaking, a fetus is human.  I have demonstrated this many times
> in this conference, and have _never_ read any responses to the medical
> issues I have raised in support of this.

and you responded:

>     Probably because doctors have no better qualifications to
>     determine what qualifies as "human" than anyone else.  They
>     can certainly provide a unique perspective, but they are
>     limited in that a) they only operate on humans, not ALL
>     life forms, b) they are unfamiliar with most of the OTHER
>     approaches to the issue

I'm sorry, I should have been clearer.  I wasn't referring to practicing
physicians, but to medical science researchers, those who study and
research in the bio-medical field, not only of humans, but of other
species as well.  So you objection that they are limited to experience
in the one species alone is not valid.

Biologically speaking, a fetus is human.  As I've said, I've shown this
time and time again.

>     (I thought this was a religious
>     issue, or so I have been informed.  If so, why are you now
>     ready to drag medicine into it?),

Because you don't seem to accept the Biblical support for the fetus being
human, and you seem to assert that the Bible doesn't give us the definitive
answer.  If, as you also assert, we can still find a valid definition, then
because of these results, the answer must lie from extra-Biblical study.

Unless you can suggest some better alternative?

>     as any specialist would
>     be.  I would grant that doctors are the best qualified to
>     determine when a fetus is alive.  The question of what is
>     human is NOT a medical question.  I find it extremely
>     doubtful that you posted medical information on abortion
>     and it was ignored universally by all.

Okay, so my sin was not being precise.  More precisely, I presented
biological evidence.  There _is_ a relationship between biology and
medicine, last I checked.  Again, sorry if I confused you.

>     Why do you assume he is getting INTO the boat?  Your
>     pastors statement seems to say "When you are faced with
>     a situation that might require some deep thought (i.e.
>     a simplistic solution is not obvious), it is better to
>     do nothing and hope the situation gets better on its own."

Okay, then, you seem to have misunderstood the statement of my pastor.
The idea is _not_ to do nothing, but to _actively_ get out of the difficult
situation until a time when it can be decided upon effectively.

>     In my opinion, my rowboat example is NOT "ridiculous
>     extremes", it is a valid anology of what was originally
>     a ridiculous statement.

When understood, it is not a ridiculous statement.

>     unfair techniques on their position.  I DO mind when people
>     get angry because I used a VERY rational, real-world analogy
>     to show why their original STATEMENT was a bit silly.  I
>     can only edit my own statements, people, not yours.  Don't
>     get angry at me for YOUR statements.

My original statement (actually, my Pastor's) is _not_ silly.  It is
only your misunderstanding of the statement that appears silly.  It
would be considered charitible to give the person the benefit of the
doubt and assume that a person wouldn't put forth a silly statement,
and to therefore ask for clarification, or an example, rather than
"showing" that it is silly.

>     Unless you can show
>     me, Jeff, why my man-suspended-between-a-rowboad-and-a-
>     pier does NOT accurately describe the proverb "When in
>     doubt, don't", I stand by it.  The man, NO MATTER WHERE
>     he stepped from, was NOT in doubt BEFORE he moved.  ONLY
>     now, when he is EQUALLY distant from both boat and pier,
>     is he in doubt as to which direction to jump,

Okay, let me try to clarify, again.  Two scenarios:

A)  He was on the pier, with the tentative plan of getting into the boat.
    He took one step into the boat, and got doubts.
           Therefore, "When in doubt, _don't_ (get into the boat)"
    The correct course of action is to step back onto the pier.

B)  He was in the boat, with the tentative plan of getting onto the pier.
    He took one step onto the pier, and got doubts.
           Therefore, "When in doubt, _don't_ (get onto the pier)"
    The correct course of action is to step back into the boat.

The moral is, when someone has a tentative plan of action, and then has
doubts about completing it, then they should _abort_ that plan, just to
be safe.  When in doubt, _don't_.

>     and your
>     pastor seems to believe he should wait for the inevitable.
             ^^^^^
I'm glad you used the word, "seems" here.  This word is a strong indicator
that you're not 100% sure of the understanding of the situation, and
indicates that you should ask for further clarification before you criticize.
I would appreciate it (sincerely) if you would ask for clarification first,
in the future, rather than jumping to conclusions.

In Christ,
.-------------------------. .--------v---------------------------------------.
| Jeff Shirton            | | Job    | "Cast all your anxiety on Him because |
| Shirton@McMaster.Bitnet | |   1:21 |  He cares for you." -- 1 Peter 5:7    |
`-------------------------' `--------^---------------------------------------'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU