From: egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 23:04:00 GMT

In article <r50n_nj.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes ...
>> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>
>>> Our debate centers around the question "At what point does a fetus
>>> become a person?"  We've given you our stands on this, and our
>>> reasoning, and how the points we choose (myelination or birth) can be
>>> logically and legally supported.
>>
>>No they cannot.  You have yet to point out what was so wrong with my
>>agruements against yours
>
>If you weren't so blind and could see past the end of your nose, you
>would have noticed many such attempts by now.  I am of the opinion
>that your prejudices are so strong you just can concieve of any reality
>other than the one you believe in.

Sure, there were attempts...but whenever I showed how those attempts weren't
quite correct, all I heard was silence...what I am supposed to think about
that?

>>> Every single argument we make for why a fetus is not a person is
>>> immediately turned down by you.  You say, "well, the fetus is
>>> obviously human, so you're wrong and your point is irrelevant."  This
>>> is NOT the way to conduct a debate.
>>
>>The fetus is human...go back to basic biology if you don't believe me.
>
>BUT IS IT A _PERSON_?  READ WHAT IS _WRITTEN_.

IMHO, yes.  It was conceived and therefore a person, IMHO.  

>>> And you can't batter our arguments into submission by coming up with
>>> wild hypotheses and outrageous claims.
>>
>>Which hypotheses are wild and why?
>>Why claims are outrageous and why?
>
>The supposition that someday _all_ embryos will implanted.  (for example)

Do you deny that there is research, that will someday be successful in
allowing all conceptions to come to term?

>The supposition that only you are correct in your belief that personhood
>begins at conception (despite that many problem to this belief that you've 
>ignored).

I have yet to see some argue effectively against it...

>
>>>  Jennifer said that birth can
>>> be marked as the start of personhood because that's when the human
>>> life begins to support itself and breathe air; you turn around and ask
>>> what happens if we learn to breathe water someday?  Get real!  
>>
>>I am being real...that liquid exists!!!  Ever see the movie The Abyss? 
>
>1) It isn't water (a flouride compound, if I recall).

I know that...just couldn't recall the specific name.

>2) It's never been tried on people.

Some day it will be...that's the whole point of the research...

>
>>Remember the scene where the rat was in a liquid and *BREATHING*...that
>>was very real!!  If you don't believe me, do some actual research and you
>>will discover that it is true.  The govt. is working very hard on making
>>it a reality for humans and they will eventually succeed.
>
>3) How do _you_ know whether the gov't is working on it?

Trust me.

>4) Do you believe _everything_ you see in the movies?

It is a fact.  I can pull reference material if you wish, although, it may
take a while as I start classes on monday.  CIS 313 here is enough to take
all my time away...but if it is important enough, I can find the time.

>>> We say
>>> that birth is a good start for personhood because that's when the
>>> human life is given a name; you say to stop talking about legal
>>> issues?  I say that an embryo resembles a fish more than it does a
>>> human adult; you say I'm wrong?  Start supporting your arguments, not
>>> just saying "I can explain if you wish"!
>>
>>You are wrong.  Just look back into biology.  I don't have time to give you
>>lessons...unless you want to pay me $8/hour for tutoring.
>
>An early (human) embryo strongly resembles an early fish embryo, pig
>embryo, chicken embryo.  Most people (i.e., you) cannot tell the 
>difference by observation alone.  Basic biology which _I_ learned in 
>high school.

Right.  But it is irrelvant how much a human embryo resembles anything.  The
critical point it that there are very different things. 

If we based everything upon observation (using only the naked eye), we would
still believe that the earth was the center of the universe.  

>>I don't know I am right, but I do know that no one is even trying to prove
>>me wrong - all I see are lame arguements that violate some basic
>>fact.
>
>Name one "basic fact" that you've used.  Tell us what scientific research
>supports your assertion that personhood (not "a human life") begins at
>conception.

That an early human embryo is _not_ an early fish embryo.  Simple enough. 

It is logic and the fact that all other points make no sense, IMHO.  For
support, see other messages.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion