From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Re: Loren Finkelstein, dictator, decides limits of religious freedom.
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 19:34:27 GMT

In <16DEC92.07023222@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>In a previous article, chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) wrote:
>>In <14DEC92.21004172@vax.clarku.edu> lfinkelstein@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>> 
>>This is some kind of cruel joke, isn't it? You're just going to
>>say "It's wrong to kill a fetus because it's a person because
>>it's a human being because it's wrong to kill it because it's
>>a fetus," over and over again, while I frantically try to find
>>a re-phrasing of my question that you'll be able to understand.

>>   1) What quality do human beings possess that makes it wrong to
>>      kill them?

>There is no one quality that makes us "wrong to kill".  There is no one 
>quality that makes us human beings.  It is a whole bunch of things, some of 
>which are not quantifiable.  I just don't think that 
>age/maturity/state-of-development is one of them.

I disagree with this, for reasons I've discussed in previous articles.

>>   2) Do any human beings lack this quality? (This would imply that
>>      it's not wrong to kill them.)

>Again, there is not any one quality.  However, there are people who forfeit 
>their right to live under certain circumstances.  Specifically by taking that 
>specific right from others (Killing them, intentionally)

I disagree here, too, and I've also discussed this in my previous
articles.

>>   3) If my answers to the first two questions turn out to be
>>      different from your answers, do you have any kind of rational
>>      argument that might convince me that your answers are better 
>>      than mine?
>> 

OK. You didn't even attempt to answer this one. I can only assume
that you wanted to be absolutly certain that we would answer the
first two questions differently. Now that you know that I disagree
with you, are you willing to take a stab at it? Please?

Actually, it occurs to me that I've already asked you variations
of this question, a number of times, and you've never given me
a straight answer. I'm starting to wonder if maybe you _don't_
_have_ any rational arguments. Could it be that you're simply 
parroting what you were taught in Sunday School (or wherever)?

To tell you the truth, this whole debate loop is starting to 
get boring. If you post some kind of rational argument that
abortion should be illegal, then I'll address it. Otherwise,
I'll just let the thread die a much-needed death.

>>[I argue: Passing laws against abortion would cause women to
>>suffer. This suffering would be especially great among 
>>14-year-old rape victims.]

>Actually, the suffering is already going on.  Making abortion illegal would 
>only eliminate "the easy way out".  It is the same as taking drugs away from 
>an addict.  Yes, they will suffer, but the person removing the drugs is not 
>responsible for that suffering.  The person who got the victim hooked is 
>responsible. 

I think I see how this works. It's kind of like if we made
a bet about something, and I lost. You'd cause me to suffer when
you collected your winnings, but you wouldn't be responsible for it.
I would be responsible, because I agreed to the bet. And if I
tried to avoid suffering by (say) making up new definitions
for words, to make it look like I'd won, then I'd be trying to
take "the easy way out", and you would be justified in subjecting
me to ridicule and scorn. 

That is how it works, isn't it?

[Actually, I kind of agree with Mr. Finkelstein here. If you
dismiss the suffering of "ordinary" pregnant women as irrelevent,
then it's probably hypocritical to make a special exception
for rape victims. IMHO.]

>>An unfertilized egg has a few different environments. It starts its
>>life in the ovaries, and later migrates through the fallopian tubes
>>and into the uterus. Now, the interesting thing about the uterus
>>is that it sometimes has sperm cells in it. Therefore, an unfertilized
>>egg, on its own, left in its environment, can in fact grow into a
>>human adult. It's not 100% certain, but it isn't 100% certain that
>>a given fetus will survive to adulthood either.
      ^
      |
      |
    This is just a figure of speech. 
    It doesn't mean that you have to
    give me a fetus.

>That is why I specified the difference between a fertalized egg, and an 
>unfertalized one.  An unfertalized egg will neververrow into a human adult.  
>It may become fertalized, but then it wouldn't be unfertalized. 

Say, I never thought of it that way! That means that a fetus can
never become an adult either! It can't become an adult unless it's
been born, but, once it's born, it's not a fetus anymore! Cool! Wanna
see my proof that going to Heaven is better than a ham sandwich?
   - Nothing is better than a ham sandwich.
   - Going to Heaven is better than nothing.
   - So, going to Heaven is better than a ham sandwich!

[Sheesh.]
-- 

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
===========================================================
Newsgroups: talk.abortion