NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20/NN_1992_20.iso/spool/talk/abortion/36675

Internet Message Format | 1992-09-15 | 4.0 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!ames!purdue!yuma!longs.lance.colostate.edu!sa114984
From: [e-mail] (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 15 Sep 92 23:32:54 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News Account)
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College, Ft. Collins, CO 80523
Lines: 67

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron Bense) writes:
|> In talk.abortion, [e-mail] (Steven Arnold) writes:
|> >In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron Bense) write
|> >s:
|> >|> In talk.abortion, [e-mail] (Steven Arnold) writes:
|>
|> >        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
|> >not 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.

    A person in a coma meets the exact criteria you set out above.  I'd call
coma victims "persons."

|>  |> 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?

    Sure.  Even if murders (of born people) were rare, they should still be
illegal.

|> >|> 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.)

    If you're saying that a tumor, put into the womb, and given no treatment
other than what would be given any normally-conceived unborn child, I'd be pretty
shocked.  But I won't believe it until I read it with my own eyes.  As of now, I
have seen no evidence to that effect and I don't believe it.
    Prove me wrong, if you can.

Steve