lvc@cbscc.UUCP (Larry Cipriani) (01/24/85)
By Mike Gray: > Start putting out reasoned moral argument and refutations of anti-abortionist > positions instead of wasting time arguing with anti-abortionists. Their > position is well-solidified. It is usually religious in nature, > meaning that it is based on faith. You can't argue with faith. (For an argument against faith read 'Atheism: The Case Against God') Try this pro abortion argument: My position on abortion is that the fetus, like a 'brain dead' person on life support equipment, is a dead human being (for a time) on life support (i.e. the mother). If one accepts the propostion that it is acceptable to stop providing life support for a 'brain dead' person, then necessarily one must accept that it is acceptable that the mother be allowed to stop providing life support for a 'brain dead' fetus. I would add that this period of being 'brain dead' lasts roughly 28 weeks. So, although this is not a blanket support of abortion, it should find support by many people. As far as rights are concerned, the dead don't have any. Lastly, I would add that, I think abortion is always a sad thing to do, but the best of several bad alternatives. Larry Cipriani Send mail or respond in net.politics, I don't cbscc!cbsch!lvc read net.women nor net.abortion.
egs@epsilon.UUCP (Ed Sheppard) (01/25/85)
From Larry Cipriani: > (For an argument against faith read 'Atheism: The Case Against God') > I would add that this period of being > 'brain dead' lasts roughly 28 weeks. As far as the first goes, arguing against (the existence of) God in not the same as arguing against faith, per se. For the second, I'd like to see some facts on this. 1) What is the technical meaning of 'brain dead' (i.e. what are the testable characteristics of this state), and what do physicians presume these characteristics to indicate? 2) When does a fetus begin to exhibit neural activity of the kind we associate with un-'brain dead' individuals? Frankly, while not terribly knowledgeable about these matters, I would suspect that neural activity (in the strictest sense) begins far before 28 weeks. This seems to tie in with Jeff's 4-6 month proposal. I find un-'brain dead' a far more palatable decision mechanism than either time since conception or 'viability.' Please, no responses of the sort 'is this guy an idiot, or what?' This is an honest request for information. Ed Sheppard Bellcore
nap@druxo.UUCP (Parsons) (01/26/85)
>My position on abortion is that the fetus, like a 'brain dead' person >on life support equipment, is a dead human being (for a time) on life >support (i.e. the mother). > > ...I would add that this period of being >'brain dead' lasts roughly 28 weeks. So, although this is not a blanket >support of abortion, it should find support by many people. As far as >rights are concerned, the dead don't have any. Interesting, but doesn't brain activity begin much earlier than that? (Sorry, my data is at home and though not yet brain dead, age is taking its toll...sigh...am I wrong in my memory?) Nancy Parsons AT&T ISL
lvc@cbscc.UUCP (Larry Cipriani) (01/26/85)
Apologies to net.politicer's for my postings on abortion (this is the last one, I promise). It is an important political issue though. Paul Dubuc is right, net.abortion is a ghetto for 'pro-lifers'. Responding to a 're: a pro abortion argument' that I heard about second hand (we haven't been getting net.politics lately). Yes, there is brain activity in a fetus before the 28th week, but it is not brain activity definitive of homo-sapiens. Sorry for the confusion. Larry Cipriani cbscc!lvc
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (01/29/85)
In article <4662@cbscc.UUCP> lvc@cbscc.UUCP (Larry Cipriani) writes: >By Mike Gray: > >> Start putting out reasoned moral argument and refutations of anti-abortionist >> positions instead of wasting time arguing with anti-abortionists. Their >> position is well-solidified. It is usually religious in nature, >> meaning that it is based on faith. You can't argue with faith. > > (For an argument against faith read 'Atheism: The Case Against God') > >Try this pro abortion argument: > >My position on abortion is that the fetus, like a 'brain dead' person >on life support equipment, is a dead human being (for a time) on life >support (i.e. the mother). > >If one accepts the propostion that it is acceptable to stop providing >life support for a 'brain dead' person, then necessarily one must accept >that it is acceptable that the mother be allowed to stop providing life >support for a 'brain dead' fetus. I would add that this period of being >'brain dead' lasts roughly 28 weeks. So, although this is not a blanket >support of abortion, it should find support by many people. As far as >rights are concerned, the dead don't have any. > >Lastly, I would add that, I think abortion is always a sad thing to do, >but the best of several bad alternatives. > >Larry Cipriani Send mail or respond in net.politics, I don't >cbscc!cbsch!lvc read net.women nor net.abortion. This argument is unacceptable and invalid. No one in their right mind would pull the plug on a "brain dead" person if the Doctor assured the relatives that in a matter of several weeks the patient would experience a complete recovery and live a healthy life. The DEAD have no rights???? The fetus represents the beginning of life, not the END of life. Obviously, this analogy breaks down at its very core!
bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) (01/29/85)
In article <cbscc.4662> lvc@cbscc.UUCP (Larry Cipriani) writes: >By Mike Gray: > >My position on abortion is that the fetus, like a 'brain dead' person >on life support equipment, is a dead human being (for a time) on life >support (i.e. the mother). > Why is a fetus like a 'brain dead' person? Could it be that a fetus is more like a person on kidney dialysis or one that requires intravenous feeding because of esophageal cancer? You certainly wouldn't terminate the life of one of these simply because they require some form of 'life support', would you? Remember, the main reason why people want to 'unplug' individuals who are brain dead is because there is supposedly no hope of recovery from the affliction. That is certainly not the case for an unborn child. If given the opportunity, in the majority of cases, the fetus would grow to maturity. -- Tom Albrecht Burroughs Corp. ...{presby|psuvax1|sdcrdcf}!burdvax!bnapl
jca@abnji.UUCP (james armstrong) (02/01/85)
>In article <cbscc.4662> lvc@cbscc.UUCP (Larry Cipriani) writes: >>By Mike Gray: >> >>My position on abortion is that the fetus, like a 'brain dead' person >>on life support equipment, is a dead human being (for a time) on life >>support (i.e. the mother). >> >Why is a fetus like a 'brain dead' person? Could it be that a fetus is >more like a person on kidney dialysis or one that requires intravenous >feeding because of esophageal cancer? You certainly wouldn't terminate the >life of one of these simply because they require some form of 'life support', >would you? No answer. Not at all. On certain occasions. There is a fundamental difference between a kidney dialysis machine/intra- venous feeding apparatus and a woman. If you don't believe me, look! :-) If I were wired up to somebody to keep him alive, it might be moral for me to stay, but I cannot be required to. By the same token, I am not legally required to intervene in a crime. I would not require or expect a woman to provide life support to another life form that she doesn't want. If she wants to do this, fine. If not, abort it.
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (02/02/85)
> Yes, there is brain activity in a fetus before the 28th week, but > it is not brain activity definitive of homo-sapiens. Sorry for > the confusion. Is it the case that this activity is not definitive of homo-sapiens, or that our measuring tools are not capable of determining definitions of species specific brain activities in fetuses? Without taking any side on the issue of abortion, I find it dificult to believe that the brain activity of any species would not be different from that of all others. Just a hunch. -- Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward ARPA: hplabs!hao!ward@Berkeley BELL: 303-497-1252 USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307
mjc@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA (Monica Cellio) (02/02/85)
From: scgvaxd!dan@seismo (Dan Boskovich) >> [analogy of fetus to brain-dead person] >This argument is unacceptable and invalid. No one in their right mind >would pull the plug on a "brain dead" person if the Doctor assured the >relatives that in a matter of several weeks the patient would experience >a complete recovery and live a healthy life Ah, but what if the doctors said, "Yes, he'll recover in a few months, but in the meantime you are going to have to provide blood, nutrients from your body, constant attention, etc. Oh, and if you had any other plans for the next few years of your life, forget them. And get rid of that glass of wine." I think at this point the person being required to provide this assistence gets a say in the matter. (How many legal cases have there been down the line of "person X needs <substance, such as bone marrow, or organ> and Y is the only person who can provide it safely (Y is a relative"? I haven't heard of one of these yet in which Y was *required* to come through with whatever X needed. I don't think the analogy breaks down as readily as you seem to think (though, of course, all analogies have problems). -Dragon -- UUCP: ...ucbvax!dual!lll-crg!dragon ARPA: monica.cellio@cmu-cs-cad or dragon@lll-crg
daf@ccice6.UUCP (David Fader) (02/03/85)
> Apologies to net.politicer's for my postings on abortion (this > is the last one, I promise). It is an important political issue > though. Paul Dubuc is right, net.abortion is a ghetto for 'pro-lifers'. I hope your ability to keep a promise exceeds your ability to refrain from inane comments. -- The Watcher seismo!rochester!ccice5!ccice6!daf
crs@lanl.ARPA (02/05/85)
COME ON, GUYS! WHEN YOU FOLLOW UP ONE OF THESE ABORTION ARTICLES, HOW ABOUT EDITING THE "Newsgroups:" LINE SO THAT IT *ONLY* SAYS NET.ABORTION? PLEASE AND THANK YOU. Charlie Sorsby ...!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa
dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (02/05/85)
Please, people, discussions of abortion DO NOT BELONG IN NET.WOMEN. Net.abortion was created specifically for that purpose. This debate seems to have started when Yosi Hoshen posted something to all of net.women, net.abortion, and net.politics suggesting that pro-choice people were in danger of losing ground. Perhaps he/she thought of this as a "rallying call" that needed to be broadcast to so many groups, though I don't agree with this "shotgun" method of starting discussions. And Nancy Parsons posted something to net.women only arguing that abortion was a form of exploitation of women, and thus a feminist issue. So she had a specific reason to post it here. But all of the recent responses have been nothing more than the continuing debate on whether abortion is right or wrong and why. These just don't belong in net.women. So if you want to followup one of these articles, PLEASE edit the header to reflect the set of newsgroups it is actually appropriate to - it takes all of ten seconds.
daf@ccice6.UUCP (David Fader) (02/05/85)
> > Yes, there is brain activity in a fetus before the 28th week, but > > it is not brain activity definitive of homo-sapiens. Sorry for > > the confusion. > > Is it the case that this activity is not definitive of homo-sapiens, > or that our measuring tools are not capable of determining definitions > of species specific brain activities in fetuses? > > Without taking any side on the issue of abortion, I find it dificult > to believe that the brain activity of any species would not be > different from that of all others. > > Just a hunch. > You are entitled to your opinion that the human brain is no different from the brains of animals. Your attempts to prove your brain is no better than an animal brain by posting articles in the wrong newsgroup is taking the argument too far. Don't you agree. -- The Watcher seismo!rochester!ccice5!ccice6!daf
dbrown@watarts.UUCP (Dave Brown) (02/06/85)
> From: scgvaxd!dan@seismo (Dan Boskovich) > >> [analogy of fetus to brain-dead person] > >This argument is unacceptable and invalid. No one in their right mind > >would pull the plug on a "brain dead" person if the Doctor assured the > >relatives that in a matter of several weeks the patient would experience > >a complete recovery and live a healthy life > > Ah, but what if the doctors said, "Yes, he'll recover in a few months, but in > the meantime you are going to have to provide blood, nutrients from your > body, constant attention, etc. Oh, and if you had any other plans for the > next few years of your life, forget them. And get rid of that glass of wine." > I think at this point the person being required to provide this assistence > gets a say in the matter. (How many legal cases have there been down the > line of "person X needs <substance, such as bone marrow, or organ> and Y is > the only person who can provide it safely (Y is a relative"? I haven't heard > of one of these yet in which Y was *required* to come through with whatever X > needed. > > I don't think the analogy breaks down as readily as you seem to think > (though, of course, all analogies have problems). > > -Dragon Although we up here in Mulroney land are going through an abortion arguement at this very moment, I would like to say that up here, we are not as suit happy as you people to the South. Canadians still believe that getting all you can get out of life, at the expense of others, is asking for chaos. DAVE BROWN
ag5@pucc-k (Christopher Robin) (02/07/85)
<<Followups to this item will be posted to net.abortion.>>
Now look, folks ... the whole reason why we have net.abortion
is to discuss this kind of crap. You *don't* need to post it to net.politics
and net.women, so please don't.
With appreciation for your future consideration,
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Henry C. Mensch | User Confuser | Purdue University User Services
{ihnp4|decvax|ucbvax|purdue|uiucdcs|cbosgd|harpo}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Shooting stars never stop; even when they reach the top."