From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 04:37:57 GMT

In article <1a9qv2INN412@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>I don't give a damn about 'the unborn',
>>>because I don't think they *have* desires, feelings and wishes.
>>Now explain a little more about your negative feelings towards the
>>unborn.  You don't think they have desires, feelings, and wishes.  That's
>>an honest point.  But do you consider the unborn human life? 
>
>I consider the unborn to be human, and living.  I do not consider the
>unborn to be 'a' human life.  Nor do I consider either it's humanness,
>nor it's life, to be adequate reason to use another human being's body
>against the will of that human being.  Surely this is no surprise.
>
I suppose here is where we are coming from.  You weigh the mother's
right to be free from "unwelcome objects" to be greater than the child's
because you don't think the unborn is 'a' human life.  I weigh the lives
of the mother and the unborn equally.  Each life is equally important.  So
when either one's life is about to be destroyed, I want to find a way
to protect it.  If abortion is done to provide a better life for other
children, or as a means of birth control, or something like that, then the
right of the unborn to life will prevail.  

The reason I consider the mother and the child to be equally deserving
of life, is that because, unlike you, I think the unborn is 'a' human
life.  Genetics and biology would say that the thing which exists at 
conception is human, and not only is it human, it is a special, unique
human being.  Gender, for example, is already chosen.  Facial characteristics
hair color, eye color, etc. are already predetermined.  Unlike you, I do
not believe fetuses are renewable.  Once gone, always gone.  If they were
renewable, then you would be able to bring back that individual that
was destroyed via abortion.

>I was talking to Karen, about *her* feelings.

Understood.

>There you go again, speaking for me and getting it wrong.  My beliefs do
>not stem from a lack of caring for the unborn, but from a caring for the
>born.  Whether my feelings about the unborn are negative, neutral or 
>positive is unimportant compared to my feelings for the BORN, which is
>highly positive and in favor of THEIR desires for themselves.

I too, care for the born.  But I'm afraid that your thinking MIGHT stem
from the idea that children are liabilities.  When another child is born, 
that child would take away the "resources" dedicated to some other child.
Do we have to think this way?  We forget that people, too, can be resources.
We all have talents, time, effort, love and understanding to share with each
other.  People power, not material power.

The above statement, of course, recognizes the need for the basics in life.
However, let us not make the end (controlled number of children) justify
the means (abortion).

>
>Wouldn't you have a better time if you just stated your *real* objections
>so we could waste less time here?
>

I think killing a human life is a violent act.  We may be confusing whether
or not an abortion is done 'violently' or not, vs the idea that the killing
of a human life is violent in itself.  

>>But when the origins of allowing abortion are at least partially based
>>on the possibility that the child MIGHT suffer when they might not is saying
>>guilty before a fair trial.  
>
>Excuse me?  Upon what evidence do you base this curious comment?
>
The child is hereby guilty of possibly using the resources
intended for another child.
I hereby sentence you to an abortion.

>
>>>And there are likewise people out there who HAD children who may feel in 
>>>the back of their mind (it may be buried very deeply though) that 
>>>having the baby was a MISTAKE!!!!!  
>>But would the child who was a "mistake" agree?  Maybe yes.  Maybe no.
>
>See, this is what I find very hard about arguing with people who can't
>stick to the point.  You were talking about *having* the baby.  Now you
>are talking about the baby itself.  

Well, is the unborn child and the child that was born two different
things?  I'm sure you would say no.  I am merely referring to one
and the same thing.

Besides, the way "mistake" was used, gave the impression that the
timeframe had moved many years ahead.

>
>Nobody's saying the baby is 'bad'.  Nobody is saying the baby deserves
>or doens't deserve (to live/to die).  We *were* talking about the woman,
>and her decisions, before you insisted on changing horses in mid stream.
>And even if the baby is a Nobel Laureate, it could have STILL been the
>wrong decision for the woman to have *that* baby, *then*.

Whether the woman thought it was wrong or right to have the child doesn't
change the child.  The unborn child has a right to life just as the mother
has a right to live.
>
>>A parent may "know what is best' for the children many times, but does
>>the mother (or father?) have the right to terminate a child's life for
>>his/her own good?
>
>Not at all.  The mother has the right to terminate a fetus's life because
>she doesn't wish to carry it within her body and take the risks that carrying
>and bearing a child entails.

So I believe our main difference involves the value we give fetuses/unborn
children.  If I didn't care much for the unborn, and if I ignore what
it is and exactly what it represents, then I would probably think it is
tyranny for banning "mere medical operations."  However, because I do
believe that the unborn is special human life, I want to protect it just
as much as I want to protect the mothers life



Note:  Due to the rapidly growing length of our thread, here, I deleted
many portions in the hope that this thread will slowly die down so I can
work on my projects, homeworks, and midterms. :)