From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: abortion, religion
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 05:30:32 GMT

stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes ...
>In article <1993Jan15.202755.26242@hobbes.kzoo.edu>
>k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:
>>In article <1213@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>>>steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>>>the vast majority of
>>>>pro-lifers base their views indeed on imagined "christian" ideals...
>>>
>>>So what?  This is irrelevant to anything I said or believe, or the
>>>debate generally.  That people have religious views on abortion, doesn't
>>>invalidate the public debate on abortion, any more than it would on
>>>murder more generally.
>>
>>The central issue of abortion is whether or not a fetus deserves the
>>same right to live that the rest of us (born) people have.  It is agreed
>>by all that an unfertilized egg and a sperm do not have this right;
>>it is agreed by all that, nine months later, a newborn child does.
>>(Well, not all.  Extremists disagree.  Ignore them.)
>
>I agree fully with that.  In fact, this is exactly what I've been
>arguing most recently.
>
>>If you are truly suggesting outlawing all abortions on the grounds that
>>they are murder--even abortions obtained as soon as a woman knows she
>>is pregnant--then you are claiming that a barely-developed fetus is a
>>human being in the same sense that I am.
>
>Yes.
>
>>Pro-life groups wish to ban the "morning after" pill.  Do you?
>
>Yes.
>
>>I contend that the only position that can consistently claim that a
>>fertilized egg is an unborn person, with the same right to live that I
>>have, is a religious one:  that the act of conception creates a soul,
>>and that the soul is what distinguishes humans from non-humans.  In
>>fact, I believe this is specifically Christian:  the Jewish faith, I
>>have been told, holds that the soul begins life with an infant's first
>>breath.
>
>Well, this is often said, but it isn't true (that the only basis to be
>against abortion is religious or Christian), as I'll explain below.  I
>am not a Christian, and my view is not based on any religion.
>
>>If you are aware of any other position, a logical consequence of which
>>is that an unfertilized egg is not human while a fertilized egg is,
>>please explain it to me.
>
>You asked for it.  I give my (previously written) position below.
>
>[Admonishments not to argue things that in fact I don't argue deleted.]
>
>>If your claim is "a line needs to be drawn at some point, and I say it's
>>the tenth week," that's fine--you're being consistent.  But I can just
>>as consistently claim the thirty-sixth week, and you have no grounds on
>>which you can argue against me.
>
>Exactly, which is why I say the only defensible "line" is the start,
>conception.

Only defensible line _in_your_opinion_.  Let me point out some
problems with you defensible line.

1) a 1 week embryo has none of the attribute commonly associated with
people.  No brain, heart, skin, bones, muscle, eyes, arms, legs,
torso, blood, or much of anything else.
2) a 1 week embryo cannot be correctly described as "a" person, since
it may yet split and become twin, triplets, quads, etc.  If killing
said embryo is to be considered murder, how many people died?
3) a 1 week embryo cannot be correctly described as "a" person, since
it is only 50% likely that it will even implant and be born.  It may,
in fact, be so defective that it cannot grow into a person.
4) conception is not a moment, it is a process.  If humanity is to
begin at conception, is it to begin at the beginning of coception, the
end of conception, somewhere in the middle, or at the first cell
division.  Since you seem to be rather certain about the mechanisms of
personhood, this presumably will be an easy question.

>Those who favor legal abortion often say, we don't know when human life
>starts or science can't tell us when human life or personhood begins. 
>This statement can only be made based on (at least) a quasi-religious
>belief in some extra-biological aspect in what constitutes human life
>(personhood).  The biological facts are not in question (at least, not
>this century), and these, it seems to me, are the only sound basis for
>deciding what is and isn't human life (a person).

If "human life" is to be considered as being synonymous to "person",
is my left thumb a "person"?

>I am against abortion because the development of an adult human being
>is a gradual process and there is no meaningful transitions -- no
>bright line -- one can use to separate the person from the non-person in
>this process other than conception.

Tell us, oh wise one, what make conception so special?
A unique set of genes?  That much is true of all living things.
The start of life?  The egg and sperm are just as alive.
The beginning of a new person?  Those beginnings began eons earlier.

>  The
>logical mind would wonder what it is about the birth process that makes
>the child a person and why it is not ok to kill the child after birth,
>when it would have been ok just a few minutes before.

You are missing the point entirely.

The issue is not whether the fetus may be killed.  The issue is
whether the mother has a right to be not pregnant.  The two issues are
not at all the same thing.  If you are going to argue one point or the
other, please don't confuse the issues.

>Once again, I posted my position on abortion because I was asked.  I
>obviously can't stop people from responding, but if you want to ask me
>questions or want to debate abortion with me, please take it to email. 
>Use the address below.

Nope.  I don't do email.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15346 talk.abortion:58335