From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:22:35 GMT

sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes ...
>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>|> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes ...
>|> >	Ray, neither Martin nor I nor anybody else proposes that we all are
>|> >responsible for the health and safety of all other human beings on earth.
>|> 
>|> There where do you get the notion that you are repsonsible for
>|> preventing abortions?  Sounds to me like you're proposing that you are
>|> responsible.
>
>	Governments are responsible to protect the rights of life, liberty and
>property of their people...ALL of them, regardless of age.

Rather notable for its avoidance of the question.  Especially in light
of this later comment.

>|> Well then, you'll doubtless agree that if you weren't responsible for
>|> bringing a particular life into the world, then you aren't responsible
>|> for its life and safety.  I hadn't realized you also were pro-choice.
>
>	Not legally responsible, perhaps, but morally responsible to try.  I
>don't think government should FORCE me to write in the defense of the unborn, but
>I believe it is my moral duty to do so anyway.

So then, what gives you _any_ justification for imposing your supposed
morals on women when you are apparently guilty of exactly the same
irresponsible behavior you accuse women of?

>|> Nonsense.  There is pratically nothing a zygote has in common with a
>|> 40 year old adult.
>
>	Wrong.  They have exactly the same genetic potential.  What will a
>40-year-old be like?  Depends on the genetic makeup he or she inherited at
>conception.  Every bit of human growth -- down to the smallest wart, capillary or
>ganglia -- is there because of the genetic makeup inherited at conception.  The
>differences between a newly-conceived human being and a 40-year-old adult are
>peripheral and non-essential; the similarities and commonalities are fundamental
>and basic.

"Every bit of human growth"?!?  Are you _sure_?  Then how do you
explain the fact that identical twins, born with identical genes, have
different fingerprints?  How do you explain fetal alcohol syndrome?
How do you explain thalidomide babies?

A person's personality, skills, physical appearance, are all affected
by one's environment.  Physicians, lawyers, and engineers are not all
determined at birth by one's genes, despite how convenient that
fabrication might be to your argument.  One need only look at the
career choices of college students to see the fallacy in that.  For a
few years computers was the up-and-coming field, and the number people
going into programming increased.  Then it was business degrees.  Did
all the mothers of engineers decide (18 years previously) to have kids
at the same time?  Or were the students influenced by environment to
go into one field or another?

Study biology some more.

>|>  There is also a very
>|> significant 40 years worth of environmental influence and experience
>|> involved.
>
>	I'll have more experience 40 years from now than I do today if I live;
>but I'm Steven Arnold now and I'll still be Steven Arnold then, the same being.

An essentially meaningless statement, since the term "Steven Arnold"
hasn't been defined and hasn't been shown to be gene dependent.

>|> To infer that the proto-Beethoven zygote had the makings of the 9th
>|> symphony in it is flat out wrong.
>
>	Sorry, your statement is what is flat-out wrong.  If Beethoven had had
>dog chromosomes instead of the ones he actually inherited, he wouldn't have been
>a musician; that's a personal guarantee.

Also a worthless statement.  There are presently some 5.5 billion
people on the planet.  Claiming that Beethoven wasn't a dog isn't
particularly discriminating.

>|>  Environmental influences count for
>|> a lot.
>
>	Sure they do.  They count for a lot, but they do not make the person. 

Nope.  Backwards.  Genes count for a lot but do not make the person.

>Different people growing up in completely different environments are nonetheless
>still persons.  No matter what environment a human being grows up in, he's still
>a person.  No matter what environment a dog grows up in, he's still a non-person.

Again, not very discriminating.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41528 alt.abortion.inequity:4313