From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 21:32:11 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

Okay, Eric, that does it.

Eric writes:
>Kevin writes:
>> Eric:
>> 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.

We've shown you why this doesn't work (it tells us nothing about what
a person _is_).  You've ignored our reasoning and flatly dismissed our
arguments, and you keep asserting this.  Nobody else agrees with you.

>What I mean by interference is anything that would prevent the fetus
>from being born and where no cases where euthanasia would be permissable
>occur.  

You keep using your own definition of 'interference'.  Stop it.  Use
the dictionary definition, or else use a different word.

>I also think that there exists both good and bad interference.  
>
>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.

You say that 'bad interference' would include having a fertilized egg
fail to implant.  We tell you that lack of action can't be
'interference', and that fertilized eggs usually fail to implant when
they're incorrectly formed in some way.  You then say that to remove
interference, you're going to do something that will someday make
_all_ fertilized eggs implant.  I can't help but think this is a very
loony and poorly-considered idea.

>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...

You haven't met our conditions.  My conditions are that you give us a
definition of 'person' that (a) doesn't have the word 'human' or any
form thereof in it, and (b) distinguishes 'people' from animals.  In
two weeks, you've yet to do this.

We keep asking you questions about what you've said.  You dismiss our
questions with curt, unhelpful answers.

We keep saying your definitions are useless, unclear, and not
understandable.  You disagree, and then ignore our complaints.

>(Please also note, that I have a low tolerance for flame messages and if
>sarcasam (sp?) is used, I will *always* ask you to explain what you are
>trying to say in clear terms without it and not respond until it is done)

You won't explain _yourself_ in clear terms!  We're frustrated.  And
you keep repeating yourself, as in this post of yours that I'm
following up to -- you just keep saying the same things over and over
again in the same words, hoping (I suppose) that if you repeat
yourself often enough, we'll finally understand you.

I urge you to start a new thread of your own.  Don't quote somebody
else's article and nitpick his points, don't repeat anything you've
said in your recent posts.  Just state, as clearly and simply as you
can, what your views are towards abortion and why you have come to
these opinions.

     << Brian >>

-- 
_/_/_/       Brian Kendig  Macintosh Jedi           Live never to be ashamed
 _/_/   Starfleet Captain  Oracle Employee         if anything you do or say
  _/  Intrepid Adventurer  Saturn SL2 Owner    is published around the world
      bskendig@netcom.com  Wizard of Frobozz    -- even if what is published
    Princeton '92! BSE/CS  Writer/Actor/Singer                   is not true.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion