NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/talk/abortion/46873

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-08 | 6.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ira.uka.de!gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!murignis!horus.ap.mchp.sni.de!D012S658!frank
From: [e-mail] (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: A couple of agnostics chewing the fat...
Date: 6 Nov 1992 16:15:37 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
Lines: 124
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>[e-mail] (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
># [e-mail] writes:
># >Indeed.  *I* have no idea when anyone's hopes or dreams come into
># >being, but I'm an agnostic -- and as such have to entertain the
>#
># ...notion that there are things you don't know about?  The notion
># that your guess is as good as the next guy's?  Hard isn't it?  (I'm an
># agnostic too - pleased to meet you :-)
>
>Hard to stop, actually.  I've read somewhere that an agnostic is like
>a flaming arrow flying straight to hell -- and I can easily understand
>the similarity.

It's not polite to mention Hell to an agnostic :-)

[...]

>I had a friend once, in college, who was shot through the head with a
>.38 revolver at close range.  The shell passed through his left eye
>and emerged behind his right ear.  He survived.  Strangely, he was
>mostly functional afterward, if quite epileptic.  He retained much of
>his memory.  However, his personality, mannerisms, idiosyncracies,
>etc. changed remarkably -- much more so than one would expect from,
>say, psychological treatment.  It was night and day.

I don't mean to trivialise your friend's experience - but personhood is not
necessarily personality either.  A substantial number of world religions
believe in something similar to 'spirit' or 'soul' - that's a whole heck of a
lot of people who apparently have a day to day concept of 'person' which has
nothing to do with intelligence.  Who's to say they're wrong?

Personhood is largely what we say it is - in some senses it's a gift from us
to other people.  No useful criterion here sure, and it's something of a
circular argument - nevertheless I think it's approximately true.  And most
people treat their own kids in-utero _better_ than they treat other people.

[...]

>genetics, but environment as well.  Zygotes have no memory.  They have
>not learned emotional responses.  They have no analytical skills.  I

You're fine up to here.  You mean they cannot _demonstrate_ memory or
emotional responses.  That they can't prove it to a doubting thomas like you
doesn't mean they don't have it.  Maybe they don't _want_ to show you because
they think you wouldn't understand.  Maybe it's _you_ who are lacking.

And given a fair chance, zygotes implant - do they love mommy or what?

>see nothing remarkable about a zygote that tells me I should expect to
>see such things in them.  To believe otherwise means I have to adjust

I do see something remarkable about a zygote.  Many of them turn into
children.  Two of them turned into _my_ children.  One zygote went on to
found Christianity, another went on to discover America, another wrote the
works of Shakespeare, and another started world war II.  Not good or bad, but
certainly remarkable.

>my entire reality to suit it, thus making it into a reality I don't
>find very useful.  Do you see why I challenge your argument?

Yes.  Do you see why I challenge yours?

># Maybe I intended to imply that to _unnecessarily_ call something into
># existence and then destroy it is wantonly destructive, and stupid.  Who
># knows what I intended?
>
>Finish your vegetables -- there are starving children in Somalia who
>would be grateful for half of what you're throwing away.

Fine. Finish your vegetables, save somalia, write to your mother, and
then what?  Zygote canopes?

>I don't know about `wanton' destruction -- nor do I leap to the
>judgement that its stupid.  Sometimes it simply makes more sense to
>create and destroy, rather than reuse -- though I would agree that we
>humans tend to reuse less than we should.

Unnecessary destruction is always stupid, because it's unnecessary.

[...]

># Maybe an example will clarify.  Imagine a choice (and it should be a choice,
># lest anyone misconstrue) of contraceptive A and contraceptive B, equally
># effective, equally safe, equally convenient, equally cheap, equally pretty
># picture on the package - but B is an abortifacient.  Doesn't it seem utterly
># stupid and unnecessary to use B, possibly calling a zygote (which is
># certainly more valuable and rare than a sperm or ovum, no matter what you
># think of its personhood) into existence and immediately destroying it?
># Doesn't it sound similar to vandalism, if there is no _need_ to do that?
>
>I dispute your claim that a zygote is `certainly' more valuable than a
>sperm or an ovum regardless of what one thinks of its personhood.  In
>fact, I might argue that it is *less* valuable by analogy to chicken
>eggs -- which are more valuable when they are *not* fertilized.

Let me see if I have you right.  A zygote which has perhaps 30-75% chance of
becoming a child is _less_ valuable than an ovum, which rarely amounts to
anything.  Well don't let _me_ stop you.

>Furthermore, I notice that contraceptives A and B have to be equally
>effective, save, convenient, cheap (and presumably available), before
>the question of vandalism in the case of the abortifacient seems to
>enter the picture.  Is this an admission of the trivial nature of the
>argument we're engaged in?

Compassion is not always this trivial.  I have two kids.

># ># Of course, this is wholly irrelevant to a woman's abortion rights,
># ># but that's what I think.
># >
># >I left this quote intact so that anyone who follows up knows the
># >context of this debate.  I agree that it's important to separate the
># >issue of abortion from the issue of abortion rights -- and the greater
># >issue of reproductive rights.  It's fine to discuss both at the same
># >time, but it's wrong to confuse the two.

>| J H Woodyatt              |  some solid Financing, and an exchangeable

--
[e-mail]   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'