From: regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Who is this reference?
Date: 23 Jul 1992 14:05:32 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

Jimmy an' me:
>>[lots from Adreinne on the lost potential of eggs and sperm that goes
>>[away naturally.]
>  Before I start, I found it somewhat amusing you chose to name some of
>the eggs in your example.  Meanwhile, many of your compatriots get downright
>nasty when someone uses the world "child" or "baby" (God forbid a name) as 
>opposed to fetus.  Just an observation.

Hey, Jimmy, so do I (get downright nasty, that is).  I think that kind of
stuff is an emotional appeal, and you are quite right to point out that I
probably used it as such.  

>  Come on Adreinne, we can always use a little more magic! 8^)

Not without counting the cost.  The 'magic' we consider life to be is not
free.  In the abstract, life's just great, just as we can observe that in
the abstract, cancer is pretty facinating stuff, too.  Place both life and
cancer into their contexts, however, and there are other facets you have to
take into account.  The problem I have with pro-life persons, whether they
are politically pro-life or personally pro-life, is that the examination of
the context, and the costs, is so often missing from their analysis.

I think no traffic accidents would be a good idea, too.  But the cost is
so high it ain't going to happen.

>>I don't see a single solitary reason to bind the real, thinking, breathing
>>woman, who is a miracle in her own right, based on my notion of potentiality.
>  There's that word, "bind".  Please don't use it.  I'm not binding anyone.

Well, this is a public forum.  I am talking not merely to you, Jimmy, or we
could have done this via e-mail.  BTW, I believe I was also in the middle of
expounding upon *my* views, independent of your views, therefore there is
no implication, period, to your views.
deletions...
>  However, there IS a difference between the potential represented by the 
>individual sperm/egg and the two together in fertilization.  No sperm or egg,
>alone, can develop into much of anything.  They sit and wait and go away.
>  But then they get together.  Suddenly they are not sperm and egg, separate
>and unique, but Something Else.  They are not the same thing.

I don't think that's a distinction that's worth making.  Each sperm is differ-
ent.  Each egg is different.  Each embryo is different.  I think this reaction
is unwarrented insofar as one discusses the 'magic' of creation.  The fertil-
ized egg is no more 'magical' than the fertile egg.  The egg is pretty damned 
magical all by itself, and the process of fertilization even more so.  Once
fertilized, it then has this interesting implanation process, and then it
just sort of sits there (which, according to your statement above, would
seem to make it less incredible(-:). 

Certainly they aren't 'the same' thing.  None of the pieces are the 'same'
from one to another.  The nutrients the developing egg receives from the
mother isn't he 'same' thing, either.  But it's pretty magical.

I'll let someone else go on about haploid bigotry.         

>  We can equate the various forms of contraception with abortion only so far
>as that they prevent a baby/fetus/insert-your-favorite-term-here from being 
>born.  Before fertilization, there is no magical potential to worry about--
>it's pointless to shed a tear for the millions of sperm that don't make the 
>journey (and a major reason why I find religious objection to contraceptives
>goofy).  
>  After, we are no longer discussing preventing something that happens pretty
>rarely (from the standpoint of the eggs and sperm) anyhow.  Once implanted, 
>its a pretty safe bet that, barring unseen complications or outside interfe-
>rence, said sperm/egg combo will emerge in about 9 months as a baby.

That doesn't happen to be true, Jimmy.  Now you are going to have to examine
your reactions about 'magic' in the cold light of day.

The experts on the subject disagree on how many fertilized eggs actually
sponaneously abort, but the low estimate is over 30%.  The high estimate is
over 60%.  It is not 'a pretty safe bet'.

Is it like your belief that education was the key, only to find out that
the stats seem to show we have more unwanted pregnancies even with 'perfect'
knowledge than we have abortions (or 'damage control')?

Maybe you need to read up on it a little more....

>1.  The sperm and egg, separately, do represent a certain potential, but this
>    potential is much farther removed from the actual than the implanted z/e/f.
>    Alone, nothing happens.

Sez you.  I think this is a peculiarly skewed way of looking at it, myself.
To me, the sperm and the egg are even MORE unique than the fertilized egg.
They alone are haploid cells, with a specific, unique purpose.  You really
kind of minimize the specialness of these very different cells here, to 
match your particular philosophy.  Is that simply because there are more of
them?

>2.  Abortion is wasteful of a far more likely potential, regardless of whether
>    or not other, more removed, potentials are also "wasted".

Scuse me, but what is 'more' about potential?  Is a 1 week abortion 'better'
than a 6 week abortion?  I thought we had agreed that 'waste' wasn't going
to be a measure of this magic, because the process is already so biologically
redundant.

>3.  No sperm/egg alone can be a person.  Only the two together can.  Only the 
>    z/e/f can make that development step.

Precisely what makes them *more* unique, not less.  But you handwave that
away.  BTW, that more correctly should be "only the z/e/f WITH THE CONSTANT
INTERVENTION OF THE WOMAN can..."  A z/e/f in a petri dish isn't going to
get anywhere, though it's still pretty magical....No z/e/f/ 'alone' can
be a person, either.

>4.  I believe waste is always a bad thing.  Some waste is unavoidable, some
>    is not.  Abortion is an avoidable waste, and I regard it as wrong because it
>    represents a qualitative waste of potential far and above the quantitative
>    loss of sperm and eggs.

Well, your opinion is your own, of course, but I think this is foolish.  
If abortion is the choice for a teen who then goes on to have three healthy
children in her adulthood, how can you call that a 'waste'?  The same teen,
if she had borne that first pregnancy, may never have finished school, gotten
a good job, found a wonderful husband, and raised the family of three later
on.  You don't really know how any of these equations play out, and of course
neither do I.  But don't discount the economic, social and personal costs in-
volved.  Abortion can just as easily be a "good" thing as a "bad" thing 
because there are many *other* potentials that can be wasted during an
unwanted pregnancy.  MANY others.  I'll point out that nearly as many women
each year happen to think it's better than pregnancy as those women who figure
pregnancy is OK.  I think they feel there are other potentials, other          
priorities, other magic that needs doing instead.  In most cases, pregnancy
is renewable.  One's college education, one's job experience, one's windows
of opportunity, etc., may not be.

>  In short, contraception and abortion are NOT the same thing, although one may
>reasonably argue they have the same net affect.  Of course, if net effect were
>all that concerned us, child abandonment and/or infanticide would not be reg-
>arded as such a heinous crime (by US culture).

Not anybody with much upstairs.  This again would be arguing in a vacuum,
without any regard for the social, economic and personal issues.  Let's not
and say we did.

Adrienne Regard