From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:55:23 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services

In article <c1#pq-c.bskendig@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian
Kendig) writes:

> Eric writes:
> >Kevin writes:
> >> Eric:
> >> The point you are trying to argue is that "at conception, a person exists".
> >> Please explain why, IYO, "at conception, a person exists".
> >
> >It is the start of the process that will result in a newborn child if 
> >nothing interferes with it's development.
> 
> We've shown you why this doesn't work (it tells us nothing about what
> a person _is_).  

You are correct.  That is because I don't think anyone can define what a
person
_is_ beyond what I have done in saying that a person must be given moral
consideration.  We know that a "person" exists.  Everyone can (I would
hope) agree that adult humans are persons.  The question becomes when...

The other thing I feel is important in the discovery of this point is that
it must happen
at the same point for every human.  The _only_ point like this is when a
human was
conceived.

Please note, that I am not saying that everyone was conceieved at
10:20:22.22 on 10/12/1991.
But I am saying that a human life starts at a very specific point.  That
point is the same for everyone.  That point is conception.

> You've ignored our reasoning and flatly dismissed our
> arguments, and you keep asserting this.  Nobody else agrees with you.

I have not flatly dismissed your arguements.  What I have flatly dismissed
is the support you
have used.  You have been unable to explain to me why the support you have
used for
your arguements is correct.  You obviously believe that they are.  All I
ask is that you
explain it clearly and I will try to point out something that you may be
missing which will
then show why that particular support is not valid...and on we go...

I have considered that myl...(however you spell it) point over these past
few days, assuming that you could come up with support that would show it
to work better then any other.

I would like to ask you a question:

Would your point occur at the exact same moment (relative to conception)
for every human?

> >What I mean by interference is anything that would prevent the fetus
> >from being born and where no cases where euthanasia would be permissable
> >occur.  
> 
> You keep using your own definition of 'interference'.  Stop it.  Use
> the dictionary definition, or else use a different word.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that another word exists that would fit what
I am
trying to say.

> >I also think that there exists both good and bad interference.  
> >
> >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.
> 
> You say that 'bad interference' would include having a fertilized egg
> fail to implant.  We tell you that lack of action can't be
> 'interference', and that fertilized eggs usually fail to implant when
> they're incorrectly formed in some way.  You then say that to remove
> interference, you're going to do something that will someday make
> _all_ fertilized eggs implant.  I can't help but think this is a very
> loony and poorly-considered idea.

A lack of action doesn't have anything to do with the way I am using
intference which is what that critism does not apply to what I am saying. 
I have stated how I am using the word
several times to you and if you need me to do it again, I will.

Why do you believe that this is a loony and poorly-considered idea?  
I am willing to listen.

> >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...
> 
> You haven't met our conditions.  My conditions are that you give us a
> definition of 'person' that (a) doesn't have the word 'human' or any
> form thereof in it, and (b) distinguishes 'people' from animals.  In
> two weeks, you've yet to do this.

It is possible for a person to be an animal also.  At least I have seen
nothing in either my definitions that would prohibit this.

My definition of a person is that it is something that must be given moral
consideration.

The only "something" that we can point to so far is a human.  But that does
not 
necessarly mean that other animals could not be persons also.  I don't know
exactly
why we are "persons" - I don't think anyone (except God) knows why or will
ever know why.  What I do know is that we are persons...when does this
happen?

> We keep asking you questions about what you've said.  You dismiss our
> questions with curt, unhelpful answers.

Whenever I make a curt, unhelpful answer, please point it out.  I will
always make the attempt to explain it more fully.
 
> We keep saying your definitions are useless, unclear, and not
> understandable.  You disagree, and then ignore our complaints.

I have stated why I don't believe your complaints are valid.  I have
explained them
very clearly.  If you still don't understand them, I am willing to try
again and again
until you do understand them.

The reason why they are useful is because they help support what I am
saying.  The best
way for you to show why they are useless is to try to apply them to other
situations (it is possible you know) and then go on to demonstrate how it
would lead to silly beliefs.

I have never ignored complaints.

> >(Please also note, that I have a low tolerance for flame messages and if
> >sarcasam (sp?) is used, I will *always* ask you to explain what you are
> >trying to say in clear terms without it and not respond until it is done)
> 
> You won't explain _yourself_ in clear terms!  We're frustrated.  And
> you keep repeating yourself, as in this post of yours that I'm
> following up to -- you just keep saying the same things over and over
> again in the same words, hoping (I suppose) that if you repeat
> yourself often enough, we'll finally understand you.

I'll try using different words please point out the ones you feel I am not
explaining clearly.


> I urge you to start a new thread of your own.  Don't quote somebody
> else's article and nitpick his points, don't repeat anything you've
> said in your recent posts.  Just state, as clearly and simply as you
> can, what your views are towards abortion and why you have come to
> these opinions.

This was my thread.  
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39174 talk.bizarre:32107 alt.religion.computers:803