NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20/NN_1992_20.iso/spool/talk/abortion/36170

Text File | 1992-09-11 | 5.7 KB | 120 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wupost!csus.edu!netcom.com!bskendig
From: [e-mail] (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 03:58:27 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 109

[e-mail] (Suzanne Forgach) wrote (in article <[e-mail]>):
>From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Ron Bense):
>> 1) Do you realize that the fetus draws sustenance, minerals, water, etc
>> from a woman and defecates into the woman, right?
>
>No, in fact, the baby does not defecate until after birth.  If the stress
>of birth itself causes him to defecate during the birth, you have teams of
>pediatritians on hand to make sure he doesn't inhale the "merconium" on
>the way out, or else to treat him for it if perchance he does inhale it.

Okay, so maybe Ron used the wrong word, but I think you still knew
what he meant.  The fetus draws sustenance from the mother and
generates waste materials in return, and there are many women who
would not be thrilled at the prospect of being a "baby factory" for
nine months.

>> 2) Do you realize there are women who object to this invasion
>
>No, since they invited them there, it is obviously not an invasion.

Again, you KNOW what he meant, or at least I hope you do.  Please try
to address the point he's making, and not just come up with a clever
response to the words he used.

Besides, you're not entirely right.  A victim of rape didn't invite a
fetus to begin growing inside her.  Nor did a woman who hadn't been
taught about sex and thought that she couldn't get pregnant, nor did a
woman who was too drunk or drugged to realize she was having
intercourse.

Even barring these cases, I think the point you're making is that "if
you have sex, that means you're saying you're prepared to cope with
having a baby."  I understand this point-of-view, but I don't agree
with it.  I think that having sex means that you're prepared to deal
with the possibility of pregnancy, and one way to deal responsibly
with an unwanted pregnancy is to have an abortion.

The word "responsibly" is a hot one these days.  I'd wager that you
don't think abortion is a way of coping in a responsible manner; I
think it is.  Understand my difference of opinion as I try to
understand yours.

>> 3) Do you realize that some women don't care to let a z/e/f use their
>> bodies for 9 months?
>
>Do you realize that women who abort are far less concerned about the "use
>of their bodies" by the baby than they are worried about how they're going
>to care for the baby after the birth?

Hm?  I don't exactly see the point you're making, but what you said is
right: some women have an abortion because they know they'll be unable
(time-wise, money-wise, or both) to care for the baby after birth.
And don't immediately chime in "adoption"; there are women who are
emotionally unable to part with their child after giving birth to it,
and this could mean an even tighter budget and that the woman leaves
the child home alone in her apartment all day while she's at work.  Is
it that important to carry a child to term even if the family will be
much worse off because of it?

>> 4) Can you see why your vision and beliefs should not be enacted into
>> law to prevent others from preventing this situation to unfold against
>> their beliefs, which are most likely different from yours?
>
>Can you see why your lack of vision should not be forced onto children
>who do not share your lack of vision?

I can see your point here, too, but my argument with it is that a
fetus isn't a child.  In fact, I personally don't consider a fetus to
be a person or anything more than a mass of organic tissue until eight
weeks after conception, at which time the brain and nervous system
begins to form.  Until then, the fetus is incapable of feeling
pain, and in fact has no consciousness.

>> 5) Can you see how the pro-choice position lets you enjoy your beliefs,
>> while allowing others to enjoy theirs?
>
>Can you see how the pro-"choice" position allows choice for everyone BUT
>those to whom it matters most - those who die by the choice of others?

Until the brain and nervous system have formed, the fetus is no more a
"person" than your appendix is a person.  I'll admit that my decision
to base personhood on the formation of a nervous system is somewhat
arbitrary, but SOME line had to be drawn, lest you follow the
reasoning other people have followed in this thread: is a fertilized
egg a person?  Is a sperm a person?  Is it wrong not to follow through
with a glimmer in a yound couple's eye?

>> (Unless of course yours involves
>> making decisions for others against their will.)
>
>That sure sounds like the case of abortion to me.

Precisely.  You infringe on either the rights of the mother or those
of the child.  Pro-choice says, "It's the mother's body!  And besides,
the fetus isn't a person yet."  Pro-life says, "It's the child's body!
And besides, the mother asked for it when she had sex."

Neither side has all the answers.  I'm pro-choice because I don't
believe the fetus is a "person" at conception, and because I don't
believe that a woman is asking for pregnancy when she has sex.

     << Brian >>

--
_/_/_/       Brian Kendig  Macintosh Jedi           Live never to be ashamed
 _/_/   Starfleet Captain  Oracle Employee         if anything you do or say
  _/  Intrepid Adventurer  Saturn SL2 Owner    is published around the world
      [e-mail]  Wizard of Frobozz    -- even if what is published
    Princeton '92! BSE/CS  Writer/Actor/Singer                   is not true.