bird@gcc-bill.ARPA (Brian Wells) (09/07/85)
In article <740@gitpyr.UUCP> myke@gitpyr.UUCP (Myke Reynolds) writes: >When an abortion is possible, there is no entity, if there were, this would >be a clear moral issue. There is only the potential of a sentient being. >You are trying to use your morality to draw a line of demarcation. Where >will that line be when a human life can be created from a skin cell underneath >your toenail? I draw the line of demarcation at conception and I believe that it is both a moral and logical place for that line to be. The natural result of conception is baby. Even though it is just a clump of cells for a while, with no recognizable human form, it will develop into a baby if left to its natural course. When skin cells from under your toe can be used to create human life I will still have a line of demarcation at conception. A skin cell left to its natural course will protect you for a while and then die, flake off, but will never naturally become another human being. >You argue from the standpoint of morality and religion where the issue is lost >in mirky vagueness.. There is no universal morality, and certainly no universal >religion.. (I can see the ethnocentric eyebrows raised at that one.) >I argue from the point of social good. The issue is clear there, and it would >appear that the people who run this country know it. >-- >Myke Reynolds There is also no universal point of social good. I believe abortion has a bad social influence on society. I believe it devalues human life. Is your argument from the social good any less murky than those arguments based on morality and religion? I think not. Brian Wells _______________________________________________________________________________ James 1:5 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kjm@ut-ngp.UTEXAS (Ken Montgomery) (09/12/85)
[] From: bird@gcc-bill.ARPA (Brian Wells) > I draw the line of demarcation at conception and I believe that it is >both a moral and logical place for that line to be. The natural result of >conception is baby. Even though it is just a clump of cells for a while, with >no recognizable human form, it will develop into a baby if left to its natural >course. Oh, really? You (and other anti-choice people) have hit a new low in misrepresentation with the statement that: it [the fetus] will develop into a baby if left to its natural course. Pregnancy involves the _continuous_ transfer of material between the bodies of the fetus and its mother. Thus it is precisely _not_ "leaving" the fetus to anything. If the placenta fails to transfer the proper materials between the two bodies, the fetus will die. If the mother's body cannot supply the proper materials in the requisite quantities to the fetus, it will die. The choice that a pregnant woman faces is to aid the fetus or to remove it from her body. There is nothing whatsoever of _leaving_ it to "its natural course" involved in this decision, because its "natural course" _requires the overt aid of her body_. It is pure misrepresentation to suggest otherwise. -- The above viewpoints are mine. They are unrelated to those of anyone else, including my cat and my employer. Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ngp.UTEXAS.EDU [Internet, if the nameservers are up]
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (09/13/85)
> > The natural result of conception > >is a baby. Even though it is just a clump of cells for a while, with > >no recognizable human form, it will develop into a baby if left to its > >natural course. [BRIAN WELLS] > > Oh, really? You (and other anti-choice people) have hit a new low > in misrepresentation with the statement that: > > it [the fetus] will develop into a baby if left to its natural course. > > Pregnancy involves the _continuous_ transfer of material between > the bodies of the fetus and its mother. Thus it is precisely _not_ > "leaving" the fetus to anything. If the placenta fails to transfer > the proper materials between the two bodies, the fetus will die. > If the mother's body cannot supply the proper materials in the > requisite quantities to the fetus, it will die. [KEN MONTGOMERY] It is obvious that the disagreement here results from two different meanings of the word "natural" being used. To me, and probably to Mr. Wells, this transfer of materials between the pregnant woman's body and the fetus's body is eminently natural. True, 20% of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion ("miscarriage"), so the process is not 100% foolproof. But in the other 80%, the process of gestation and birth will result in a live birth. > The choice that a > pregnant woman faces is to aid the fetus or to remove it from her > body. There is nothing whatsoever of _leaving_ it to "its natural > course" involved in this decision, because its "natural course" > _requires the overt aid of her body_. [KEN MONTGOMERY] What does "overt aid" mean? Getting someone to abort her is an overt act, and results in removing the fetus from her body. If she performs no overt act, there is an 80% chance she will have a live birth. Mr. Montgomery would make his argument more clearly if he would give us his definitions of "natural" and "overt." ------------------- Does it really matter whether a zygote splits to become identical twins or not? When the split does occur, it happens so early that "banning abortion from the time of conception" and "banning abortion from the latest possible time of splitting into multiple individuals" would be indistinguishable in any practical sense. -- Matt Rosenblatt
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/14/85)
> Oh, really? You (and other anti-choice people) have hit a new low > in misrepresentation with the statement that: > it [the fetus] will develop into a baby if left to its natural course. > Pregnancy involves the _continuous_ transfer of material between > the bodies of the fetus and its mother. Thus it is precisely _not_ > "leaving" the fetus to anything. If the placenta fails to transfer > the proper materials between the two bodies, the fetus will die. > If the mother's body cannot supply the proper materials in the > requisite quantities to the fetus, it will die. The choice that a > pregnant woman faces is to aid the fetus or to remove it from her > body. There is nothing whatsoever of _leaving_ it to "its natural > course" involved in this decision, because its "natural course" > _requires the overt aid of her body_. It is pure misrepresentation > to suggest otherwise. [KEN MONTGOMERY] Bra-vo, Ken! This is the very basis of the argument that the fetus is not a viable independent autonomous entity, and thus clearly not a human being in the sense that you and I are living breathing human beings not requiring the use of the inside of a person's body for survival. -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
bird@gcc-bill.ARPA (Brian Wells) (09/16/85)
In article <2378@ut-ngp.UTEXAS> kjm@ut-ngp.UTEXAS (Ken Montgomery) writes: >[] > >From: bird@gcc-bill.ARPA (Brian Wells) >> I draw the line of demarcation at conception and I believe that it is >>both a moral and logical place for that line to be. The natural result of >>conception is baby. Even though it is just a clump of cells for a while, with >>no recognizable human form, it will develop into a baby if left to its natural >>course. > >Oh, really? You (and other anti-choice people) have hit a new low >in misrepresentation with the statement that: > > it [the fetus] will develop into a baby if left to its natural course. > >Pregnancy involves the _continuous_ transfer of material between >the bodies of the fetus and its mother. Thus it is precisely _not_ >"leaving" the fetus to anything. If the placenta fails to transfer >the proper materials between the two bodies, the fetus will die. >If the mother's body cannot supply the proper materials in the >requisite quantities to the fetus, it will die. The choice that a >pregnant woman faces is to aid the fetus or to remove it from her >body. There is nothing whatsoever of _leaving_ it to "its natural >course" involved in this decision, because its "natural course" >_requires the overt aid of her body_. It is pure misrepresentation >to suggest otherwise. > >-- >The above viewpoints are mine. They are unrelated to >those of anyone else, including my cat and my employer. > >Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" >...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] >kjm@ngp.UTEXAS.EDU [Internet, if the nameservers are up] You are right, Ken. There is overt support of the mother through all those details. I will not deny that. And if any of these functions fails, then the fetus will die. But the woman doesn't throw any switches or anything to make these functions go. They automatically start when conception occurs. If she stays healthy, the NATURAL result is a baby. All those functions of material transfer and supplying the needs through the placenta are NATURAL functions that the woman's body will perform if you just let it be. Your desire to point out the details will not change that. I contend that it still follows: The natural result of conception is baby, and that is the way it should be. Brian Wells ___________________________________________________________________________ James 1:5 ___________________________________________________________________________
kjm@ut-ngp.UTEXAS (Ken Montgomery) (09/17/85)
[Apologies to those who (justifiably) dislike multi-level references...] >> > The natural result of conception >> >is a baby. Even though it is just a clump of cells for a while, with >> >no recognizable human form, it will develop into a baby if left to its >> >natural course. [BRIAN WELLS] >> >> Oh, really? You (and other anti-choice people) have hit a new low >> in misrepresentation with the statement that: >> >> it [the fetus] will develop into a baby if left to its natural course. >> >> Pregnancy involves the _continuous_ transfer of material between >> the bodies of the fetus and its mother. Thus it is precisely _not_ >> "leaving" the fetus to anything. If the placenta fails to transfer >> the proper materials between the two bodies, the fetus will die. >> If the mother's body cannot supply the proper materials in the >> requisite quantities to the fetus, it will die. [KEN MONTGOMERY] > >It is obvious that the disagreement here results from two different >meanings of the word "natural" being used. [Matt Rosenblatt] No. The disagreement here has nothing to do with the definition of the word 'natural'. Rather, the disagreement here results from the attempt by the anti-choice people to have us believe that rendering aid to an entity is the same as leaving it to its natural course, in other words: leaving it alone. This contention is clearly false. > [...] >> The choice that a >> pregnant woman faces is to aid the fetus or to remove it from her >> body. There is nothing whatsoever of _leaving_ it to "its natural >> course" involved in this decision, because its "natural course" >> _requires the overt aid of her body_. [KEN MONTGOMERY] > >What does "overt aid" mean? Exactly what it says. If the mother's body took no action to support the fetus, it would die. I meant the word 'overt' to stress the fact that a pregnant woman is engaging in actions towards the fetus, not simply being a passive vessel for it. > Getting someone to abort her is an overt >act, and results in removing the fetus from her body. If she performs >no overt act, there is an 80% chance she will have a live birth. Horsepucky. See above -- pregnancy is a continuous, overt action. > Mr. Montgomery would make his argument more clearly if he would give us >his definitions of "natural" and "overt." I've already shown that the definition of 'natural' is irrelevant here, and I have explained my use of 'overt', both above. -- The above viewpoints are mine. They are unrelated to those of anyone else, including my cat and my employer. Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ngp.UTEXAS.EDU [Internet, if the nameservers are up]
michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) (09/27/85)
[purrr...] > > > The natural result of conception > > >is a baby. Even though it is just a clump of cells for a while, with > > >no recognizable human form, it will develop into a baby if left to its > > >natural course. [BRIAN WELLS] > > > > Pregnancy involves the _continuous_ transfer of material between > > the bodies of the fetus and its mother. Thus it is precisely _not_ > > "leaving" the fetus to anything. If the placenta fails to transfer > > the proper materials between the two bodies, the fetus will die. > > If the mother's body cannot supply the proper materials in the > > requisite quantities to the fetus, it will die. [KEN MONTGOMERY] > > It is obvious that the disagreement here results from two different > meanings of the word "natural" being used. To me, and probably to > Mr. Wells, this transfer of materials between the pregnant woman's > body and the fetus's body is eminently natural. True, 20% of pregnancies > end in spontaneous abortion ("miscarriage"), so the process is not 100% > foolproof. But in the other 80%, the process of gestation and birth > will result in a live birth. [MATT ROSENBLATT] It is just as "natural" for the egg and sperm to come together. They also "will develop into a baby if left to ... natural course" (unless you are all arguing that *sex* is "unnatural," of course). And yet, none of you seem to be suggesting that "human rights" be extended to these very-human beings *prior* to their union. None of you are suggesting that people be *required* to have sex and be *required* to get pregnant because "it will develop into a baby if left to its natural course." Your position is *quite* illogical. Don't all those never-to-be babies also deserve "human rights"? > > The choice that a > > pregnant woman faces is to aid the fetus or to remove it from her > > body. There is nothing whatsoever of _leaving_ it to "its natural > > course" involved in this decision, because its "natural course" > > _requires the overt aid of her body_. [KEN MONTGOMERY] > > What does "overt aid" mean? Getting someone to abort her is an overt > act, and results in removing the fetus from her body. If she performs > no overt act, there is an 80% chance she will have a live birth. Mr. > Montgomery would make his argument more clearly if he would give us > his definitions of "natural" and "overt." [MATT ROSENBLATT] This debate about "overt aid" should make it clear how imprecise these terms are. Given the general meanings these terms hold, surely as much overt assistance by the mother is needed to *make* a baby as to prevent its birth. For example, if the woman "performs no overt act," not only will no baby be born, but the woman will *die* of starvation. *Eating* is an "overt act" on anyone's part. And how about seeing a doctor, and going to the hospital when the time comes, and simply keeping sheltered and warm and clothed. Being *human* involves performing a continuous sequence of "overt acts" that the life of the baby-to-be depends on. > Does it really matter whether a zygote splits to become identical twins > or not? When the split does occur, it happens so early that "banning > abortion from the time of conception" and "banning abortion from the > latest possible time of splitting into multiple individuals" would be > indistinguishable in any practical sense. [MATT ROSENBLATT] Please notice everybody! Matt is here agreeing that, since the zygote *is* capable of becoming different individuals following fertilization, he is willing to forego the special "humanity" that he sees conferred by the initial coming together of the zygote's "unique genetic entity." (Wearers of I.U.D.s, you *may* be able to rest easy. :-)) -- Michael McNeil 3Com Corporation "All disclaimers including this one apply" (415) 960-9367 ..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm ... if "dead" matter has reared up this curious landscape of fiddling crickets, song sparrows, and wondering men, it must be plain even to the most devoted materialist that the matter of which he speaks contains amazing, if not dreadful powers, and may not impossibly be, as Hardy has suggested, "but one mask of many worn by the Great Face behind." Loren Eiseley, *The Immense Journey*, 1946
kjm@ut-ngp.UTEXAS (Ken Montgomery) (10/01/85)
>You are right, Ken. There is overt support of the mother through all >those details. I will not deny that. And if any of these functions >fails, then the fetus will die. But the woman doesn't throw any switches >or anything to make these functions go. They automatically start when >conception occurs. If she stays healthy, the NATURAL result is a baby. >All those functions of material transfer and supplying the needs through >the placenta are NATURAL functions that the woman's body will perform >if you just let it be. Your desire to point out the details will not >change that. I contend that it still follows: The natural result of >conception is baby, and that is the way it should be. [Brian Wells] I'm still going to decline to debate the meaning of the word "natural". It's like the word "love" -- it appears to mean so many different things to so many different people that it has now lost most (if not all) of its claim to objective meaning. Your objection about "details" is nonsense. It is precisely the means used to achieve an end (the "details", in this case), that determine whether that end is moral/ethical. Your objections are nonsense in another way. It is false that "the woman doesn't throw any switches or anything to make these functions go." A pregnant woman must eat more, and in the correct nutrient proportions. She must, if she wants to bear a healthy baby, abstain from alcohol, tobacco, etc. She must exercise correctly and in the right amount. She must put up with hormonal disturbances that can result in morning sickness and complexion changes. She must, as the pregnancy progresses, put up with increasing motility loss. An effort above and beyond that of the usual (non-pregnancy) state is required for her to stay healthy. And this is not having to do anything?! _We_ believe _you_... :~> As for your "let it be" argument, I fail to see why facts of biology constitute moral/ethical imperatives. I utterly fail to see _why_ it follows that, as you say, "that is the way it should be." And I find it to be preposterously safe and convenient for _men_ to espouse anti-choice positions. -- The above viewpoints are mine. They are unrelated to those of anyone else, including my cat and my employer. Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ngp.UTEXAS.EDU [Internet, if the nameservers are up]
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (10/02/85)
> > Does it really matter whether a zygote splits to become identical twins > > or not? When the split does occur, it happens so early that "banning > > abortion from the time of conception" and "banning abortion from the > > latest possible time of splitting into multiple individuals" would be > > indistinguishable in any practical sense. [MATT ROSENBLATT] > > Please notice everybody! Matt is here agreeing that, since the zygote > *is* capable of becoming different individuals following fertilization, > he is willing to forego the special "humanity" that he sees conferred > by the initial coming together of the zygote's "unique genetic entity." > [MICHAEL MCNEIL] I'm not willing to do any such thing! A fetus's unique genetic identity is EVIDENCE of its humanity -- it does not CONFER humanity. --------- With respect to the question of "natural process" and "overt aid" -- I the lengths to which Michael McNeil has had to go in claiming that the nourishment of the fetus requires "overt acts" (e.g., feeding herself) on the part of the mother are a pretty good _reductio ad absurdum_ of Ken Montgomery's argument that continuation of a pregnancy to term is not a "natural process." -- Matt Rosenblatt
bird@gcc-bill.ARPA (Brian Wells) (10/05/85)
Key: >> from an old posting of mine (Brian Wells) > from Ken Montgomery In article <2441@ut-ngp.UTEXAS> kjm@ut-ngp.UTEXAS (Ken Montgomery) writes: >>You are right, Ken. There is overt support of the mother through all >>those details. I will not deny that. And if any of these functions >>fails, then the fetus will die. But the woman doesn't throw any switches >>or anything to make these functions go. They automatically start when >>conception occurs. If she stays healthy, the NATURAL result is a baby. >>All those functions of material transfer and supplying the needs through >>the placenta are NATURAL functions that the woman's body will perform >>if you just let it be. Your desire to point out the details will not >>change that. I contend that it still follows: The natural result of >>conception is baby, and that is the way it should be. [Brian Wells] > >I'm still going to decline to debate the meaning of the word "natural". Your debate over the meaning of natural is what brought this discussion on. >It's like the word "love" -- it appears to mean so many different >things to so many different people that it has now lost most (if not >all) of its claim to objective meaning. Funny you should say that... >Your objection about "details" is nonsense. It is precisely the >means used to achieve an end (the "details", in this case), that >determine whether that end is moral/ethical. Personally, I thought your claim that babies weren't the natural result of a pregnancy was nonsense. (But we aren't debating "natural" :-) ) >Your objections are nonsense in another way. It is false that "the >woman doesn't throw any switches or anything to make these functions >go." A pregnant woman must eat more, and in the correct nutrient >proportions. She must, if she wants to bear a healthy baby, abstain >from alcohol, tobacco, etc. She must exercise correctly and in the >right amount. She must put up with hormonal disturbances that can >result in morning sickness and complexion changes. She must, as the >pregnancy progresses, put up with increasing motility loss. An effort >above and beyond that of the usual (non-pregnancy) state is required >for her to stay healthy. And this is not having to do anything?! >_We_ believe _you_... :~> This is not necessarily true. Assuming that a woman properly takes care of herself in the first place, she may not have to increase her diet or exercise. In fact, some women do not not do any of the things you mentioned and still have perfectly healthy babies. My wife was particularly amazed that some of the women on the maternity ward had not quit smoking or drinking and had no problems at all. Furthermore those hormonal changes are still automatic functions, and besides, she doesn't have to deal with the hormonal changes and discomfort of the menstrual cycle for those nine months. >As for your "let it be" argument, I fail to see why facts of biology >constitute moral/ethical imperatives. I utterly fail to see _why_ it >follows that, as you say, "that is the way it should be." Taken from my position that the fetus is alive and that its life is valuable, and that the fetus'life is more valuable than the woman's convenience, and that pregnancy is a natural biological function, it follows. >And I find it to be preposterously safe and convenient for _men_ to >espouse anti-choice positions. I find the same to be true of _men_ who espouse pro-choice positions. ( Or should I have said anti-life? :-) ) >The above viewpoints are mine. They are unrelated to >those of anyone else, including my cat and my employer. > >Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" >...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] >kjm@ngp.UTEXAS.EDU [Internet, if the nameservers are up] Brian Wells James 1:5
barb@oliven.UUCP (Barbara Jernigan) (10/07/85)
> Furthermore > those hormonal changes are still automatic functions, and besides, she > doesn't have to deal with the hormonal changes and discomfort of the > menstrual cycle for those nine months. > Brian Wells No, Brian, she has to put up with a new set of hormonal changes and discomfort for nine months. For many women, pregnancy is anything BUT a picnic. This has nothing to do with abortion, *per se*, but a lot of you MEN talk about pregnancy as if it were business as usual *sans* periods for nine months. It ain't, fellas. ___________________ ______________\ ___________ | ______ / . / / o .ooo. ./ /. . o@ooo0 .ooooo. .ooooo. .oooo Barb oo..oo oo...ooo ooo..ooo \ .oo oo oooooo oooooo ooo ooo
bird@gcc-bill.ARPA (Brian Wells) (10/09/85)
In article <428@oliven.UUCP> barb@oliven.UUCP (Barbara Jernigan) writes: >> Furthermore >> those hormonal changes are still automatic functions, and besides, she >> doesn't have to deal with the hormonal changes and discomfort of the >> menstrual cycle for those nine months. >> Brian Wells > >No, Brian, she has to put up with a new set of hormonal changes and >discomfort for nine months. For many women, pregnancy is anything >BUT a picnic. > >This has nothing to do with abortion, *per se*, but a lot of you MEN >talk about pregnancy as if it were business as usual *sans* periods for >nine months. It ain't, fellas. > > ___________________ > ______________\ > ___________ | > ______ / > . / / o > .ooo. ./ /. . o@ooo0 > .ooooo. .ooooo. .oooo Barb > oo..oo oo...ooo ooo..ooo \ > .oo oo oooooo oooooo > ooo ooo In case I gave other people the impression that I think pregnancy is a picnic, I will clarify myself. I understand these hormonal changes and do not attempt to deny them. All I was trying to do is show that there are some discomforts that go away for those months of pregnancy. Anyways, I had hoped that this wouldn't appear as my main focus, which in the conversation with Mr. Montgomery was that when conception occurs, the woman's body responds naturally to the pregnancy and provides for nourish- ment and protection. I apologize to all women who felt that I was trying to downplay the discomforts of pregnancy. Brian Wells James 1:5