From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:20:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College, Ft. Collins, CO 80523

In article <kzwnk!r.gordons@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
|> <Sep12.071229.20901@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
|> ><1992Sep2.205935.9428@coopsol.com>, gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
|> >|> <1992Aug31.145731.12606@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) said:
|> >|> >In article <a3andz+.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
|> >|> ...
|> >|> >And everybody wants to impose their belief system on the rest of the
|> >|> >country through the use of law.
|> >|> 
|> >|> Please answer this simple question directly:  If you come to me with a
|> >|> problem and I say, "It's your decision, your choice", how does that
|> >|> qualify as imposing my belief on you?  I'm speaking in the context of
|> >|> abortion, ok?
|> >
|> >	If I told you I needed money and I wanted to rob a bank: what do you
|> >think?  And if you said, sure, go ahead, it's your decision -- you have, of course,
|> >NOT imposed your beliefs on anyone.  But if I went and robbed the bank, *I* would
|> >certainly be imposing my beliefs on others, and that would be impermissable. 
|> 
|> Yeah?  So?
|> 
|> >Relating it to abortion, when a woman has an abortion she is taking the life of
|> >her unborn child, and is therefore imposing her beliefs on her unborn child to
|> >the point of killing the baby.  This is a pretty serious level of imposition.
|> 
|> There is no child or baby involved in an abortion, except those cases of
|> an underage girl having an abortion.  You can't impose beliefs on a fetus
|> (as in make them obey or follow you belief system).  You can *apply* your
|> beliefs on a fetus, but then, so what?

	Well, that's where we disagree, isn't it?  You arbitrarily choose some
level of development you think is "good enough" and call that class of human
beings "persons."  I, on the other hand, would not presume to impose my personal
judgements regarding the beginning of personhood on any living humans.  Hence,
you make an arbitrary division among living human beings and I do not.
	Just what OTHER living human beings aren't quite good enough for you? 
Cripples?  Those in a coma?  Newborns?  The mentally handicapped?  Where does it
end, Gordon?  And don't dodge that question: give me a real answer, and give me
your reasons for that answer.  Where does it end?  What human beings are good
enough for Gordon Stoga?
	BTW, I don't pick on you because I dislike you, but because your comments
are interesting enough to deserve a reply.  No offense, I hope.

|> >|> Another question:  In the above simple scenario, would it be better if you
|> >|> came to me with a problem and I said, "You can *only* do such-and-such,
|> >|> you have no other choice"?  Which would you prefer, if it were you?
|> >
|> >	It would certainly be better if you had advised me not to rob the bank;
|> 
|> Don't go robbing any banks now Steve. Unless you are prepared to face the
|> consequences.

	Don't go killing any unborn children, Gordon, whether you're prepared for
the consequences or not.

|> >or in the case of abortion, if you advised the woman not to destroy her child.
|> 
|> No child to destroy.  You analogy falls flat because you equate a fetus,
|> *barely* the complexity of a brine shrimp, with a child.

	What are your criteria for personhood, Gordon?  And what means would you
use to empirically test them?  And is your test susceptible to false negatives? 
Or false positives?  And if so, just how susceptible?  And why should your
criteria be accepted and not someone else's?

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.abortion