home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!paladin.american.edu!darwin.sura.net!dtix!oasys!bense
- From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion
- Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
- Message-ID: <25019@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
- Date: 14 Sep 92 19:35:19 GMT
- References: <1992Sep2.032432.10808@ncsu.edu> <Sep14.180310.83928@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
- Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
- Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD
- Lines: 68
-
- In talk.abortion, sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
- >In article <24987@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) write
- >s:
- >|> In talk.abortion, sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
-
- |> Then why didn't you post it, or would it be shot down by recent experiments
- |> that show the interchangeability of certain types of tumors and all
- |> fetuses?
-
- > No, it's well-known medical fact. I'll post it if you like. BTW, wher
- >e
- >are YOUR sources?
-
- I will search for them, but they were in the paper within the last 4
- months.
-
- > I agree that sensation, in and of itself, is not sufficient for
- >personhood. Many things sense, yet are not persons. But I am not prepared to
- >assert that a thing which does not, at any given moment, sense, is therefore no
- >t
- >a person.
-
- How about something which doesn't sense, nor has the ability to sense
- in the way we are speaking of, iow, basically having 'person' traits,
- and won't until quite a few things change which takes varying amounts
- of time? I'd say it isn't a person, but given many months, and a willing
- person to carry it to term, then I'd saqy it was definitely on its way
- to becoming a person.
-
- |> How about preventing the root cause? Someone here recently posted that
- |> the Netherlands, having an extremely liberal education policy regarding
- |> sex and pregnancy, has the lowest abortion rate of any country wherein
- |> it is legal, and a bunch where it isn't. Why don't you push for programs
- |> that prevent the need for abortion, not legislate abortion itself? After
- |> all, a good prgram would also significantly drop all those unwanted
- |> children also, so you'd be killing two birds with one stone (pardon
- |> the pun) and would be a much more efficient use of your time, and much
- |> easier to implement.
-
- > I would support any program I thought would reduce the number of
- >abortions. I would support any program that I thought would reduce the number
- >of
- >rapes. But I would not, because I support those programs, therefore favor repe
- >al
- >of rape laws, nor would I stop supporting restrictive abortion laws.
-
- Why??? If there is now a situation (hypothetical) wherein all abortions
- performed are largely due to contraception failures or medical necessity,
- why do you still feel the need to tell others what they cannot do?
-
- >|> Apparently, a human being is also created with each tumor, yet I don't
- >|> see you arguing for these to be brought to term. WHy not? Why must they
- >|> be recognized? WHat precedence is there for recognizing them? And wqhy
- >|> is it arbitrary?
-
- > A tumor is not a living member of the human species. Given nutrition,
- >tumor will never develop into a mature human being. Give it up, Ron. A tumor
- >and an unborn child are not interchangeable. Or are you suggesting that if a
- >tumor were put in the womb, it would develop into a person, just like you or me
- >No? I thought not.
-
- You thought incorrectly. That is exactly what I'm saying. I'll look
- for the source, as mentioned it above, and post it. (or, if someone
- has it, go ahead and post, as it will take me a few days.)
-
- Ron
-
- Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
-