From: egorr@cie.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Distribution: usa 
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 19:08:07 GMT

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?

>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.

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.

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."

>>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.


>>> 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.

>>> 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.

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)...

>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.

>>> 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.

>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.



Newsgroups: talk.abortion