NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/talk/abortion/31460

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-12 | 4.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!ubc-cs!unixg.ubc.ca!kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca!access.usask.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!ciit85.ciit.nrc.ca!brandonu.ca!mcbeanb
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Life at conception...
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:20:36 CST
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
Lines: 99

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron Bense) writes:
> In talk.abortion, [e-mail] writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron Bense) write
>
> #In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron Bense) wri
> # It really begins with the creation of the particular sperm and egg,
> # which of course, begins with the creation of the being from which they
> # are created by, etc. If you mean that the building blocks of the individual
> # have been brought together to allow an individual to come about, then
> # yes, it is at conception.
    ************************
what is at conception?

> # But why stopping this is a problem,

Stopping what?

> # I don't
> # understand, as it is only stopping another one of many that have already
> # been stopped by nature, and why should it make any difference whether
> # man or nature terminates a conceived entity?

There's no guilt involved if nature does it (just a thought).

> [...]
>
>>> 2/3 of fertilized eggs never make it past the fetus stage. What else
>>> I need to clear up, you'll have to be specific about.
>
> [...]
>
>>I'm sure you can see my point.  0 moles become babies.  1/3 of all
>>fertilized eggs (with your figures of course!) do.  There is a
>>difference between abortion and removing moles...  Babies aren't
>>persons when they are newborn, but they have enough potential to become
>>persons that most people refrain from killing them.
>
> Yes, but those that are removed through abortion aren't even babies.

that's a silly thing to say...  Aren't we arguing to determine at what
point it is moral to abort?

> They have the potential to become babies, which, by your wording, means
> that they have a potential to have a potential to become persons. So
> now it is a potential twice removed,

It is not any times removed.  Personhood is basically the final stage right?
Babies do not have personalities when newborn.  That doesn't matter, because
babies are cute so people let them live anyway (most of the time).
So, all that matters (for the purpose of this discussion) is potential
babyhood.

> at what point should we stop? With
> egg and sperm? The ovaries and testicles? The parents of the potential
> parents?

I thought I covered this slippery slope bit a couple dozen times already...
For me, I see it this way:  Before zygote implantation, there are small
chances for a baby (thing which will almost undoubtedly become a person
if it reaches babyhood in a healthy state) to be produced.  After
implantation, the chance jumps a significant lot, and gradually
increases from then on.  I draw my line at implantation.

> A line must be drawn somewhere, and what I've seen, you're a fairly
> reasonable person, so you should be able to see the validity in birth
> as that arbitrary point.

reasonable, sure.  Accept *birth* as the arbitrary point?  Not in a billion
years (even if reincarnation does happen).  Sure, the baby causing
labour pains is in a lot less likeable spot than the baby which has
already hopped out, but they are quite very essentially the *same* being.
Unless the mother was about to die flat out with the birth, then there
should be no reason to kill a baby right before birth.  Surely this
rarely happens (when the mother's life is not at grave stake), but
saying that it would be moral is rather disgusting.

> It is the point where the infant (it is after
> birth) does not directly impinge upon any one particular person, although
> mothers generally tend to care for their newborns, as any person can
> take care of it after that point.

Not just any person can.  When was the last time you took care of a newborn/
recently born baby, or even just a regular run-o-the-mill 9 month old baby?
Not just anyone can do this without a lot of effort.

> Before birth, the z/e/f relies entirely
> upon a single woman for everything, 24 hours a day, causing her harm
> and hardship. (for those who would say pregnancy is wonderful, I've
> never heard a pregnant woman say that, only that the *results* are wonderful,
> a big difference)
> Birth seems the earliest time that this line can be
> drawn, and not encroach on another's rights.

Birth is just too late to kill it.  Say you were delivering a baby,
and you had your hands on his head...  Would you abort it if the
mother asked you to?  Likely not, and even if she was going to die
you would surely carry deep emotional scars afterward.

Brian McBean  -  [e-mail]