From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: What needs to happen to discuss these issues productively.
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 17:50:56 GMT

In article <72685@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Kevin Welch) writes:
>David
>>Kevin
>>>Larry Magnolia writes
>
>>>>Wrong - it is purposeful; the purpose is to terminate the pregnancy.
>
>>>The purpose is to kill the fetus to end pregnancy.
>
>>This may be like  "The purpose is to drive the car to get to work".  Do I 
>>just like to drive or do I want to get to work. An abortion is to end a 
>>pregnancy. To this end, fetal tissue is killed (yes, it is killed). The 
>>purpose is *not* to kill the fetal tissue.
>
>There is only one way to end pregnancy.  To end pregnancy, one must
>kill the fetus.  Killing the fetus ends pregnancy.  Abortion kills the
>fetus.  Fetal death ends pregnancy.  There are many ways to get to work.
>I may drive, walk, bike, take a bus, fly, etc...so Drving a car doesn't
>mean I will go to work since there are many other methods to get to 
>work.  Drving a car does not mean going to work.

Good so far. Keep in mind the purpose of the action. I don't get in the car
*to* drive, but to *get to work*. I may *walk* to work. The purpose is to 
*get to work* not to walk.

Try ending a pregnancy *without* killing the fetus. To get to work, you need
to *go* somehow. With the purpose of getting to work, you have to leave the 
house.


>  Abortion has the
>purpose of killing the fetus.

I have a feeling you're deliberately avoiding the obvious.


We may be just operating in different realities here but you are really not
seeing this at all.



>>Imagine "Hmm, I'm prenant, I think I'll go kill some fetal tissue."
>
>One does not decide to kill a fetus outright when she is pregnant.  If
>the decision is that the fetus is unwanted, she has an abortion.  Abortion
>kills the fetus.  Abortion kills fetal tissue.
>

Quite right. The purpose is not to kill the tissue. If on option was to extract
the living fetal tissue, and put it on  ice (Walt Disney style) then we
 may have a different arg here. She is *still* going to the clinic to end
the pregnancy *not to kill a fetus*.

>
>>>  You just don't end
>>>pregnancy.  You kill the fetus.  Since there is a purpose according to
>>>you, is it a fruitful purpose to kill humans?
>
>>You need to straighten out cause and effect.
>
>The cause, or intention, is to kill the fetus.  

We may need to just drop this as all you are doing is totally ignoring
cause and effect and reasserting nonsense. If you can prove to me that women
have some kind of grudge against fetuses and want them all dead, that is one
thing, but I have observed to majority of women who get abortions did so
to end the pregnancy.



>When the fetus dies, pregnancy
>in this case ends.  The direct course of action is to kill the fetus since
>there is only one way to end pregnancy unnaturally.  The termination
>of pregnancy results from fetal death.  Termination of pregnancy is the side
>effect of fetal death.  Pregnancy is directly related and dependent upon
>the presence of a fetus.  A woman cannot be pregnant without a fetus.  To
>have an abortion kills the fetus.  The side effect is the termination of 
>preg.
>
>
Everything you just said is true but does not address why a woman gets an
abortion.

>>>  If the fetus in a human mother is not a human being,
>>>of what species is it?
>
>>He is not saying it is not a human fetus, he is saying it is not a human being.
>>I imagine there is perceived to be a distinction there. I certainly see one.
>>I do not see a 8weed fetus meeting any criteria for being a human being.
>
>Larry fails to make distinctions between human beings in the genetic and moral
>senses.  SOmething prevents him from realizing their are differences and
>that most philosophers and proponents accept.  A fetus may not be a human
>being in the moral sense, but it is a human being genetic.
>
Please comment on my post containing the criteria for being a human being.
An 8 week fetus does not match the definition of person or human being but
more matches the definition of a clump of cells. Repetative reassertion
will never make something true.



>>>  It is a human being in the genetic sense.  It is
>>>human.  it is a human.  Unless you think otherwise, you're ignorant of 
>>>biology.
>
>>You only assert a human  fetus is a human being.
>
>I assert that it is a human being in the GENETIC sense.
>
But 'being' implies an individual, perhaps a 'person'? Genetically, all 
my cells are *human* in the genetic sense. I don't hold a funeral for
killed sperm.

>>A human fetus is genetically human. Is cake batter a cake? It's not done,
>>cake batter is not a cake, a human fetus is not a human being, nor is it
>>a cake.
>
>>>Bodily autonomy does not allow the body to incur damage to itself.
>
>>Wanna bet? What is shock? Stupid thing your body does that'll kill you. There
>>are lots of examples of things your body does to kill you.
>
>Shock is bodily preservation!!!!!! 

Shock is bodily preservation with an evil twist. It may help but will 
definitely kill you untreated. Some preservation.



> If no one tends to a shock victim, he
>eventually dies!!  Shock stops all blood flow to unnecessary organs to
>route the blood to the brain!!  TO keep the brain alive!!!  The most vital
>integration center of the body!!  Shock causes the body to shiver to keep
>up body temperature!!  Shock does not kill the body.

The orginal point, moving to being lost like all the other points, is that
yes, your body will kill you. It is not a true statment to say that the 
human body will always try to save itself. It has some bad ideas about what
saves itself. Sure, shock tries to save blood for the brain, this just 
happens to kill you. Not a good preservation mechanism I'd say. It 
doesn't work. Without modern medicine helping *stop* you body from excercising
'bad judgement', your body just killed you. 

>
>
>>>  Basic
>>>moral/ethical philosophy.  Self-preservation. 
>
>>Untrue.
>
>Very, very TRUE.

If you want to believe your body somehow acts solely in a manner which  
preserves itself. Go ahead. You would believe the same no matter what I said,
a doctor said or anything. No matter what we say here, you still insist
that women go get an abortion to kill a fetus, that a fetus is a human
being because it has potential and you still believe that a sperm and egg
do *not* have that potential. 

What can we say? No matter what happens here, you just still go on believing
what you wish.


>>> Yours is a classic slip
>>>by one who has no training but parades knowledge.  Take a course.
>
>>Sounds like he knew what he was saying, actually.
>
>Larry does not know what he is talking about.  Larry has no ability to make
>distinctions Z all these terms.
>
>
>>>>> Morals come from society.  What does a people think of a general ideal?
>
>>>>Society thinks that abortion should be legal.
>
>>>What percentage, Larry?  I have numbers, do you?
>
>>Post them, and their source.
>
>Well...Debate I went to Z Kate Michelman and Susan Smith (big timers)
>stated that 60% of the nation thinks abortion should be limited
>to rape, incest, life in danger.  ANother stat I have simply says that
>a "majority" of Americans reject Roe and its allowances.  Boston Globe.
>
Which Boston Globe?

>No major poles, but I know where to find them...I will get stats.
>
Good that will help this.

>
>>>>> Can humans play God?
>
>>>>Why not?  George Burns did.
>
>>>Oh a he he he.  A ho ho ho.  This is yet another example of how you, Larry,
>>>are inept at grasping philosophical concepts.
>
>
>>Do you attempt to insult people as some sort of rite of passage?
>
>No, I just wish people would take time out to answer my rebuttals.  If someone
>makes a claim I think is stupid or outrageous, I will add a dumb comment.

Tit for tat?

>BUT I will also take the time to refute or try to refute what that person
>has said.  Larry made no effort there.
>
>
You do refute for certain, but when we come to a conclusion base totally on 
logic, you still assert what you believed in the first place. What is the 
point? 

-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity