NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/talk/abortion/34984

Internet Message Format | 1992-09-04 | 3.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!dtix!oasys!bense
From: [e-mail] (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:03:16 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ronald Bense)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD
Lines: 65

In talk.abortion, stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ronald Bense) wri
>tes:
>>But if you happen to survive in spite of all this (and some do) you
>>have the right to be treated at a medical facility, to put you back
>>together again. Nothing unfair about gravity. See the point of this
>>furthering of your parallel argument? Just substitute cases and see
>>how it reads.

>Sure, but the parachutist example is an analogy, not an equivalence.

>Where the two are not equivalent, is in the fact that getting medical
>treatment for injuries sustained in a jumping accident (assuming the
>extremely unlikely fact of survival, is an individual choice.

You did not show below where anything other thatn *your* unsupported
opinion indicated that this was not an individual choice. I have, however
supported my contention that it is an individual choice with a possible
group of interested parties, who, if they really care, will support
the woman. No matter how you hem and haw, a fetus is merely human life,
not a human being by any present stretching of definitions, except religious
ones. If you really want to debate this, I'll have to locate that blasted
article where tumors and z/b/e's were exchanged successfully, which
indicates (probably to your horror) that anytime you kill a tumor or
remove it, that you're killing a possible human life, or, by your religious
based definition, a person. It appears location has more to do with
this than anything else. If it is in a *woman's* womb, you wish to preserve
it, but if it is anywhere else, which is equivalent to male anatomy,
you think it's quite all right to remove and kill it. From this viewpoint,
your remarks come out as extremely sexist, discriminatory, and even
misogynist. Note that I'm not calling you this, just indicating what
your stated views would likely be taken as from this viewpoint, which
has as much, if not more, validity than yours. It does, after all, have
scientific backing, and has been proven to hold true in test cases.

>Abortion is NOT an individual choice.  At least one, and possibly two
>other people are involved.

Says who? Is there another person there? I guess I see your point, though,
after all, sometimes there is a husband involved, and maybe her other
kids (although their input should be nil in this) as well as her parents
(who also have no business doing anything except supporting their daughter
during this difficult decision). So, that still leaves us with *one*
primary person, the mother, and lots of interested parties, at best.
Kind of like a soccer game. You have thousands of fans, with interest,
for one or the other of the teams to win, as some might even have bet
on it and have more reason for one or the other to win. Now, as a parallel,
should the game be decided on which side has more interest? (as in more
bets/fans?) Or should the players (the primary parties) get to deal
with who wins?

>>I like these parallel arguments. Even if I have seen them once or twice
>>before. :)

>That's good, because they will occur again and again.

And as easily disproven or fleshed out each time. Brick walls and head
banging come to mind here. That was the purpose of the smiley. Kind
of like the whole list of "Abortion is murder" posts we all expect to
see when the new batch of naive, unthinking freshmen come back to school
in the next week or so.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.