From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Distribution: usa 
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 19:25:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.190807.22748@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@cie.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.164215.14633@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep27.204329.5372@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>>>In article <490n#c-.bskendig@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian
>>>Kendig) writes:
>>>> 
>>>> Eric writes:
>>
>>I for one enjoyed it!  And it was effective in getting through to you.
>>Did you ever think that Brian wouldn't have said that if you'd cooperate
>>in this discussion instead if ignoring it?
>
>I have never ignored it.  How does it feel to tell an obvious lie?

You ignore anyone's argument by coming up with these "what if" wild
claims.  And if you are too stupid to realize that, then you're hopeless,
absolutely hopeless.


>
>>The entire point of all of this is this: a fetus is completely dependent
>>on ONE PARTICULAR PERSON, and that person, save through abortion, is
>>FORCED to participate in this dependency.  Once birth has occurred,
>>no one is FORCED to care for a child.  One does so willingly, or transferrs
>>that dependency to another.  That is one very important difference between
>>a fetus and a baby.
>
>I like this concept of being forced...except that it is not true.

You tell me then..if abortion is not legal, what options does a woman
have to safely terminate a pregnancy?  You're the one with all this
wild "scientific" knowledge--what answers have you discovered in your
vast research?

Having no options is forcing a woman to continue with a pregnancy she
does not want.

Since you have absolutely no idea what it feels like to be unexpectantly
pregnant, I'd suggest you ask someone and find out.

>
>Just because the umbilical cord does not exist physically, does not
>mean that its moral or legal equivalent doesn't exist once the
>child is born.

You simply don't get it, do you?

>
>The moral & legal equivalent of an umbilical cord, etc. does in fact
>exist once the child is born.  Except that in this case, you
>would insert "adoption" insead of "abortion."

EXACTLY!!!!  People CHOOSE adoption.  If abortion is illegal, people
do not CHOOSE childbirth as there IS NO CHOICE.

Can you get what we're driving at?

>
>>>What happens if some disaster occurs and the loving and caring parents are
>>>not at home and the child is being watched by a baby sitter.  That child is
>>>totally and wholly dependent on that sitter to save it's life because it
>>>would surely die if someone did not.
>>
>>Why is this important?  Can you not follow our logic?  Are you that obtuse?
>
>Because it shows that the child is in fact totally and wholly dependent
>upon others.

OTHERS.  PLURAL.  in fact, ANYONE.  Anyone at all can care for an infant.
ONLY ONE PERSON, the pregnant woman, CAN "CARE FOR" A FETUS.  THE ONLY
_PERSON_ who can CHOOSE, is the woman.  If you remove her choice, then
she's STUCK.  NO one can do what she is doing.  HOWEVER, after the child
is born, then ANYONE can CHOOSE to care for the infant.  The now-unpregnant
woman doesn't have to if she doesn't want to.  IT doesn't matter WHO
cares for the infant, as long as someone, or some people, DO.

In fact, if NO ONE PERSON CHOOSES to care for an infant, that's all right,
too.  The woman can turn the infant over to authorities and they can find
a body of people, if necessary.  The woman CAN'T turn over a fetus, at this
time, to ANYONE.

IS this sinking in yet?  I know it is hard to realize that while the
fetus is inside the woman, she can't transfer it to another, but once
the fetus is born, she can easily transfer it to another.

>
>
>>>> In fact, if mommy and daddy are sleeping, then NOBODY's taking care of
>>>> the baby at that time, but the baby still SURVIVES, meaning that it's
>>>> obviously TOTALLY and WHOLLY dependent on NOBODY!
>>>
>>>Sure, for that limited period of time.  But it will always become totally
>>>and wholly dependent on someone again - which is the critical point.
>>
>>But the point is...AT NO TIME is a fetus able to survive without that
>>one particular person to care for it.  A baby, for a time, can survive
>>on its own.  That is one of the things that qualify it for personhood.
>>While a fetus and a baby are both humans, one is definitely different
>>from the other.
>
>Sure it can...what happens if the mother dies...there is still a chance
>if the fetus is removed soon enought that it will survive.

THEN, STUPID, IT IS BORN!  IT IS NO LONGER A FETUS!  IT IS A BABY!, and
as I previously stated "A baby, for a time, can survive on its own."
At no time can a fetus survive on its own.

REsearch that, if you can.]

>
>>>> Whoooa, _Dangerous_ point.  You're rationalizing abortion by saying
>>>> that a human is always a person, but that sometimes it's okay to kill
>>>> a person?  Or maybe that some humans are "more of a person" than others?
>>>
>>>No.  Ever heard of Self-Defense, for example?  Or clear cases where
>>>euthanasia
>>>is permissable.  In these cases, a "person" is still being killed, but
>>>it is ok.
>>
>>Okay, college boy..what has the fetus done, if it is a person now, to
>>deserve killing via abortion?  On what grounds do you argue for the defense
>
>In any valid case where self-defence, euthanasia, etc. is morally
>permissable in a born human would also be applicable to a fetus.

You didn't answer my question.  You ignored it.  You say that self-defense
(note the spelling) is legal, which is true.  Then you say that fetal-killing
should be legal on the grounds of self-defense. That's fine, but what if
the woman's life isn't in danger?  What if she doesn't want to be pregnant?

>
>I would rather not expand on this at this time, until the core issues  
>are discussed fully.  But...if someone wants to do it via E-mail, I
>would be willing so long as you take as a valid assumption that a human
>is a person from the moment of conception.  My worry is that if
>I discuss it further here, some will get involved that don't
>take it as a valid assumption (which is necessary)...

No.  I won't assume the fetus is a person at all.  BEcause I don't believe
it meets the necessary criteria for legal personhood.  Assuming that
a fetus is a person from conception has many legal loopholes in it, as
we have already brought to your attention.  You have ignored them all
with your "This is invalid" non-argument.

>
>>You see, if you look at this logically, and you deem the fetus to be a
>>person, then the ONLY reason you could allow abortion is to save the life
>>of the woman.  THat is totally and wholly unacceptable to most of us here.
>>However, if you have no logic then......
>
>No, it is not...please reply to this point via E-mail.

POint-blank, eric---Do you support abortion rights?  Elaborate.

>
>>>> I thought you already said it happens at conception, and that there
>>>> was no room for argument on that decision?
>>>
>>>Oh, there is plently of room...I just haven't been able to find it yet and
>>>was wondering if anyone else
>>>could.
>>
>>You are implying that women who choose abortion do so on the whim! This is
>>preposterous.  Most women know exactly the implications of their choice
>>and think about it VERY carefully, long and hard.  For you to imply that
>>they don't is, well, paternalistic and demoralizing toward women.
>
>Where am I impling this?  I am not.  Nor do I even agree with this.
>
You conveniently deleted that reference.  You stated before that you want
women to think about abortions before having them.  That in itself implies
that women DON'T think about the issue when faced with an unwanted and unexpected
pregnancy.  That is paternalistic and demoralizing toward woman.  Women DO
think very carefully about all the issues before making their decision.  And I can tell you from FIRST HAND experience, that REGARDLESS of the decision, it
is not easy, nor is it quick and easily resolved.

>>Have you ever thought of the consequences if fetuses were made persons?
>
>Yes.  A great deal.  Done a lot of reading on this topic also.

Like all that research you've done?  Yeah, right.  Call me in 10 or 15 years,
when you've been living for a while and had some real-life experience.
Then, just maybe, you might be able to think, rationally and without
illogical "arguments".

Jennifer

Newsgroups: talk.abortion