From: mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Date: 15 Sep 1992 04:55:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center

In article <d2wnh!=.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes ...
>> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>>>  mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>>> }        I backed it up all the way to two cells--two distinctly human
>>> }cells that in just 9 short months will be ...
>>> 
>>> Why stop there?  Why not back it up before then?  Why not back it up
>>> to the lustful gleams?
>>> 
>>Get serious.
> 
> What makes you think he or I are being any less serious than are you?
> You make up some arbitrary point for the beginning of humanity then 
> expect everyone else to accept without question that you decision is 
> correct?
You will not be able to find any serious scientist who thinks that another
human being exists before the moment that human being is conceived.  That's not
an arbitrary point, Ray, that's simple biology. 

I gave my reasons for what *I* believe.  You incorrectly read into it that I
expected everyone elso to accept it.  This is a discussion...don't get so 
uptight when someone disagrees with your belief that killing babies is ok.
> 
>>> }Then I decided that abortion is wrong.
>>> 
>>> Good for you.  You did not, however, explain why it should be illegal.
>>> 
>>If it wasn't obvious from what I said, it should be illegal because it is 
>>killing (by torture) an innocent human being who has no choice in the matter.
> 
> Several more blatant and unsupported assertions from the Gospel of Stokes.
>
Are you getting nasty because I disagree with the Gospel of Ray? 
> It isn't torture (in part, because torture implies pain)
Provide your proof that there is no pain.  Make sure you're right because, if
you're wrong, you're torturing a lot of babies to death.
> It isn't innocent
An unborn baby who didn't have anything to do with being there isn't innocent?!?
.
> It isn't a human being.
A molecule of water is still water.

> It cannot make a choice.
Neither can a baby born in July 1992.  Do you want to kill them too?

> 
> Now then, I don't doubt you disagree with these statements.  If you're
> going to say so, please keep in mind that you should try something more
> convincing than your own Edicts For Humanity.
> 
>>Yes it should be made illegal.  Yes I am pro-choice--for the baby.  Let it
>>(via nature) decide if it is going to live or die.  The one person in this
>>world it should not have to fear is its mother.
> 
> Well then, since Nature is to be the Ultimate Arbiter of Human Endeavour,
> perhaps we should all eschew clothes, cars, houses, computers, and Bibles
> and go back to a hunter/gatherer existance?  After all, all of the above
> are clearly contrary to the wishes of Nature or else they would have been
> supplied for us.
> 
They were.  I've got them, and I bet you do too.  Of course, it took time to
acquire them.  Good things take time, Ray, even the unborn.

> -- 
> Ray Fischer
> ray@netcom.com
-- 


Stokes McMillan -  	Flight Evaluation Office (VF3)  NASA JSC
			MCMILLAN@vf.jsc.nasa.gov