From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:42:51 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services

In article <1992Sep28.030021.7074@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep27.203052.4629@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep26.013224.14982@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
> >kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
> >> 
> >> 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.
> 
> This statement is not correct.  1/2 to 2/3rds of all z/e/f's fail to implaint.

Sorry, let me restate.  

It is the start of the process that will result in a newborn child if 
nothing happens along the way to prevent this from occuring.  

(Is this ok for me to use in place of interference?)

> >Before the the moment of conception, nothing exists that could be
> >considered a person.  The reason for this is because left seperated,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Um, I would certainly think that the *WOMAN* the z/e/f is about to possibly
> implant in could be considered?  Do you disagree?  Why?

I do not disagree.  In fact, I have stated this (I hope) clearly many
times.

> >the egg or sperm will _never_ develop into a human child.
>                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Why "human child"?  Why not "person"?

I could have said either one, I simply choose the one which is likely to
cause less disagreement since some people don't think it becomes a person
even after birth. What's your point?

> >I also think that there exists both good and bad interference.  
> 
> So, tell me something.  Was Hurricane Andrew "good" or "bad" interference?
> Was Mount St. Helens "good" or "bad" interference?  Is a miscarriage "good"
> or "bad" interference?

Accidents or something similiar. 

Unless someone caused them to occur.  Then it would be bad.

> >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.
> 
> So if a pregnant woman gets struck by lightning, and has a miscarriage, that's
> "bad interference"?  I think I see your point here...

See above.

> >An example of good interference would be anything that makes it possible
> >for the fetus to be born without any cases occuring where euthanasia would
> >be permissable.
> 
> So if a pregnant woman doesn't want to be pregnant, we can strap her down to
> a table for nine months, force feed her lots of vitamins, etc etc etc, and
> that "good interference"?  I think I see your point here...

I've never said that the woman should not be considered.  After all she is
a person also and must be given moral consideration.

> >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...
> 
> Well, you haven't explained why "at conception, a person exists".

I don't know how to explain it any further except to say that it is the
start of a process that will result in a newborn child if nothing happens
along the way to prevent it.  If you don't understand this, then please
point out some problems you see with this and I will try to explain why I
don't feel they are problems and in that way, maybe you can start to
understand why I am saying this.

We can (I hope) agree that we are both persons.  when did this occur?  I my
thinking is that is happens when each of us were
conceived.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh