From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The fundamental question of abortion
Date: 15 Sep 1992 07:08:34 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <16862EA21.M21164@mwvm.mitre.org> M21164@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>In article <gxxnkp=.bskendig@netcom.com>
>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>>So the fetus is nothing more than a mass of organic tissues for a
>>while before it becomes a living, but unborn, child.  The point at
>>which it becomes a "person" is subject to opinion, but I think it's
>>safe to say that this point doesn't come for a few months.

>The point at which it becomes human is not subject to opinion.  

No, that is simple science. It is actually human even while it 
consists of a seporate sperm and egg.

>It may
>be beyond the ability of one side of this issue to convince the other side
>when this takes place, but surely it has nothing whatever to do with what
>anybody thinks about it. What I mean is that at some point between
>conception and birth the human fetus becomes what we all commonly
>understand to be a human being who is entitled to life, liberty and
>the pursuit of happiness.  If abortion takes place after that point it
>then a human being is killed.  

I think that these statements are logically consistant.

>Lengthy arguments about genetics or
>brain waves from both sides notwithstanding, it is not possible to
>prove or disprove that a fetus is  human because neither genes nor neurology
>can possibly embrace what it means to be human. (although arguing that a
>poost-viable fetus is not human is something of an uphill battle)

As I stated above, it is possible to prove that it is human, just as
long as it consists of human tissue. In that case, it is exactly that:
_human_ tissue. Is it a human being? That would depend on your definition
of what is a human being. Perhaps more important than the determination
of when we can use that phrase, is the determination of what attributes
we value, and why we value them.

You talked about length arguments, and rather quickly discounted them.
When you get down to it, those lengthy arguments are really the crux of
the issue, and so the can not be so easily discounted. 

>Therefore, in the minds of many, abortion *might* be killing.  (I'll
>eschew the use of the word "murder" just because it is emotionally
>charged and technically overloaded) and since the law of often pro-
>scribes that which *might* be injurious to human safety or life, it
>seems resonable to proscribe abortion, or at least limit its
>practice

Certainly abortion is an act of killing. But so what? We kill all the
time. Our very existance is based in an endless cycle of life and death.
What you need to do is take that killing and see if it fits into any
particular moral context. 

In talk.abortion I've seen many people use a lot of vague phrases that
may look good on the surface, but the real substance of the issue is
rarely ever touched; that substance is the issue of what we value and
why we value it. It doesn't surprise me that this issue is so often
avoided, because it can be a very dangerous place, were one can loose
what seemed like solid moral and philosophical footing.

Eric
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity