X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 11:08:07 -0500
From:         URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      Re: Moral Activity (was Re: Asylum)

john ocallaghan <jocallag@DARWIN.HELIOS.ND.EDU> writes:
>A point which of course I was not making.
>Again, a point I was not making.

Agreed, I was making the points, not you.

> You are the one who claims to be able
>to distinguish clearly between what counts as an individual and what does
>not in such a way that a woman having a child does count as an individual
>while the child she is having does not.

I'm not sure I'd say clearly, I would and did say easily.

>I thought we had settled what makes something a "legal" person.  You were
>denying that a child in the womb is an individual, and I thought suggesting
>that
>since it is not an individual it could not be considered a "legal" person.

Well, yes, until it is an individual (as in separate person) it cannot
obtain any legal documents of identification. Whether this is when the cord
is cut, the head pops out, or when it takes its first breath is not so much
important as compared to when it is visibly alive and separate to the naked
eye. This is my impression of what the "law" regards as a "legal" person.

>I'd be interested to know where you heard this was a "myth," or at least
>not "reliable."  Is the reliability deficient because of the natural cycle
>of fertility being not "reliable" or because of the actions of the mother, i.e.
>the mother breastfeeding intermittently, and not solely and completely?
>If the latter, then its a little inaccurate to say the cycle is not "reliable."
>But anyway, I would be interested to know where you heard that it is a "myth."

What I understood the "myth" to be was that as long as you breastfeed, you
can't get pregnant, even if it were "x" years. If I understand Len correctly,
there's a limit to "x". I suppose I heard it from one cousin or another, I
did not mention the "myth" part to attack "you" personnally, just for
clarification in my own mind.

>>>There are more ways in which neither mother nor child are independent
>>>bilogical "units" in what appears to be your sense.  My wife could list them.
>>>But I think you get the picture.
>>
>>Yes, you've "beat it into this congenital progressive" enough:-)

>If what I wrote is the truth, are you saying that congenital progressives are
>not naturally open to the truth, but have to have it beaten into them? :-)

Of course that's what I'm saying:-)
I suppose all life on this planet is part of "one" biological system, something
I lost sight of.

>And I was trying to indicate that our history shows that the criterion of
>"legal" person has usually been used by the powerful against the weak,
>motivated by self-interest and not love.

Survival of the fittest, I suppose.

>  I do not deny that an unborn
>child is not considered a legal person in our nation.  We have a difference,
>namely some things which the law treats as "legal" persons, and some things
>that it does not.  I was not asking you for a statement of the fact of the
>difference.  I was asking you for a reason for the difference.  It is as
>if I presented you with two apples, one red and one green.  I could ask
>you at least two questions:
>1) are these apples different?  To this you might answer: yes, one is
>green and one is red.  But this is not the question I am asking.
>2) Why is this apple red, and this apple green?  This is the question I am
>asking, for I already know the difference.  You could answer after the
>fashion of 1).  But then you wouldn't be answering my question.  I already
>know the difference, this one is red, and this one is green.  I'm asking you
>for the reason for the difference.  Do you see the difference? ;-)

Yes, and here's my answer, it's sure to piss someone off and open myself
up as an easy target (something I appear to be good at:-), but it's my
view of why society accepts abortion.
Your analogy to two apples would be more appropriate if it were an apple and
an apple blossom, sometimes you must thin out your harvest so that what
remains becomes stronger. The apple tree itself, may drop some of its own
fruit and leaves in times of drought in order to survive.
Natural selection, survival of the fittest and self-preservation are as much
a part of nature as they are of human nature. It is not so much "love" of
any one individual or potential individual as it is "love" of humanity as
a whole. But I'm no expert:-)but I do tend to agree with Len, in that,
any abortion discussion tends to degenerate, or at least causes hard
feelings between participants. -J.J.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic