myke@gitpyr.UUCP (Myke Reynolds) (09/21/85)
Brian Wells writes: > Sure you could argue a line of demarcation at birth >but I don't think it is a firm and immovable as a line at conception. [go on down a little] > My daughter was born six weeks >early and she certainly looks human. According to all the classes and books >I have had, she has looked human for a few months now even though she has >been in the womb. If you had something else in mind, please explain. Do you have me and Rich Rosen mixed up? I never said abortions should be legal anytime close to birth. They aren't now, and I certain never said they should be! I watched some of the PBS special on abortion. Even through all the distortions of _Silent_Scream_, there was something about it, and the pro-choice film that followed it, that deeply disturbed me.. All those gruesome pictures of aborted children.. They didn't look like fetuses, they looked like half developed babies?! The followup film did a good job of countering every point the anti-abortion film made *except* that. A rather large except in my mind... Were those medical complications? How late are unexceptional pregnancies allowed to abort?? Paul Dubuc writes: >A fetus may not be a thinking human being (according to your definition) >at a particular point in her life. But neither is the person who is >unaware *at that particular point in her life*. I don't follow you here.. For a person to become a non-thinking being (at least by the way I was considering this) would require s/he to die. I know thats not what you meant, you can't kill a dead person, much less without his knowing it.. What do you mean by thinking being? I gather from the parenthetical that your definition of thinking being might include a fetus?? As the PBS documentary pointed out, the last 3 months of development of a fetus are almost completely devoted to growth of the brain. It increases in size incredibly till it makes up 1/6 of a child's body weight at birth. Most abortions (according to the film) occur before the twelfth week after conception. This seems reasonable to me, as long as it is before the period of cerebral growth. This is the upper bound on where I would put a limit on abortions if my say so meant anything.. (If anything, it would be earlier.) >To you the future state or potential makes no difference with regard to the >fetus. Why does it make a difference with regard to the person who is unaware >at a certain point in time? Why can't the fetus simply be considered "unaware" >for the time being? The fetus is less then just unaware, there is nothing to be aware. The potential life of the already existing woman is also at stake. Time is precious and children require a great deal of it. I think it is quite callous to call child baring a mere inconvenience.. I have great hope for the future, a child would set me back 5 to 10 years.. To an unwed mother who does not have the career options I do, having a child when she isn't ready could set her back a life time. And for what? A mindless mass of cells? My definition of sin goes like this; anything you do that hurts someone unnecessarily is a sin. As such I do not consider abortion a sin, there is no one to hurt. On the other hand I consider forcing someone to have a child a sin. >What difference does my social status or the fact that I won't be hurt >personally make as to whether I'm right or wrong? Would I be right to >say that you shouldn't be pro-choice because your life will never end >in an abortion? You don't know anything about what I can or can't afford >and it makes no difference one way or the other. You need to discuss the >argument on its own merit. Is is wrong to be against racial discrimination >if you're not in a minority? Do you think that everyone in the lower >"social classes" agrees with you on abortion? Arguing with things that >have nothing to do with whether or not the person's opinion is right or >wrong is what is meant by and ad hominem argument. I did not say your social status made your view invalid, what I did say is that ones views can be very tied to their environment. Yes indeed, I get the impression there are a lot of women who are stuck in the lower brackets of life now because they were barefoot and pregnant early in life who favour abortions for their daughters. The "I want you to live the life I never had" point of view. Whether or not it is due to your environment, I don't think you have much empathy for this, the other side of the coin. To you the potential of an amorphous blob of cells is so much more important that women should be subjected by law. If you saw the last film in the PBS documentary this was brought out by situation and by the pro-life activist (was he really a Dr.?) who was trying to persuade a woman not to listen to her mother and to come live with him and his wife, and the other expectant mothers he gave shelter to. He considered the mother misguided.. >No, I'm willing to help her with alternatives. My wife and I have personally >done so. How about you? Sir, at 17 there are many things I haven't done. >If this teenager doesn't want an abortion do you >tell her that it's too bad, she'll have to tough it on her own? Do you support >both choices, or just abortion? Thats absurd. Its is you who is arguing against choice, not me. I applaud the nobility of your spirit, and apologize for accusing you of moral hypocrisy, but your tunnel vision saddens me.. You remind me a great deal of the "doctor" in the last film I mention above.. At first he was shown standing with a bunch of pro-lifers who were yelling things like "Don't burn your baby".. (not only tacky, but to me, sin) But then he was shown at home in a much more tender setting with his wife and the expectant mothers he cared very well for. It saddened me that here was such a passionate man with such a misguided cause.. Not the cause of helping pregnant women who could not other wise afford to keep a child, but the cause brought on by thinking this sort of help should be forced on all women with unwanted pregnancies. >No, I wan't to know what your answer *is*. Why aren't you telling me? >You don't accept conception (that's what you're tearing down) so what's >your line? What difference does it make if I set a line? Myke Reynolds' line of demarcation, oh boy. It is easy to have an opinion about something you know little about. >How do these scenarios affect the question of whether or not the fetus >is a rightful human being? The scenario wasn't addressing the subject of whether a fetus is a "rightful human" or not. It was addressing the situation that you want to see there be no out for. All for the sake of a rightful human fetus, a mindless blob of cells. >A girl may carry the child for term and >get help in raising it and finishing school or she may opt for adoption. That doesn't even come close.. I can hardly spare the time to sleep at times, raising a child PROPERLY requires more time then I could ever spare now and hope to ever make anything of my life. As to adoption, I think I'll reply to that in another message with some excerpts from a college life magazine that floats around Ga. Tech at times.. >>A fetus is not cognizant. >Neither is someone who is sleeping. If the fact that they will be >at other times matters for them, why does it not matter for the fetus? That is not what I meant.. A sleeping person has a mind and a unique personality. Sleeping does not preclude this.. A fetus has no mind. >Draw your line between killing a human being and abortion for me. At >what point does the former become the latter? When it has a mind!!!!!! arg... >Yes, this is beginning to look like a merry-go-round. If your not going to >make a reasonable attempt at defining the line and telling me where >it occurs, then I'll be glad to get off. You are very exasperating.. I've said all along, "when it has a mind", what I will not blunder an attempt at is a point at which there is beyond a shadow of a doubt nothing of the mind which makes us us. But it is certain well after conception. >The presence of a nervous system is not conclusive proof that a human being >is a "thinking one". I'm not sure what you mean by that, but *NOT* having a nervous system is quite conclusive proof that something isn't a thinking being. >Anyway, what I am trying to get at is how you define >the line between the protected and unprotected, and why you feel that line >makes a difference. My point is that I don't think potential is irrelevant >in considering whether or not the fetus is a rightful person. >A body cell is not a fetus or a zygote, is it? That is where the qualifier >makes the difference. The point I did a very poor job of trying to make here was stated much more elegantly by Michael McNeil with his _Brave_New_World_ analogy.. You speak of the importants of potential, degrees of potential make a difference to you however.. You wish to subordinate a woman to this potential. Not to life, but to potential of life. My opinion is that this is not justification enough. Your opinion is that it is. Maybe we will never reach an agreement? -- Myke Reynolds Office of Telecommunications and Networking Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!myke "Too bad all the people that know how to run this country are busy cutting hair and driving taxi cabs." -George Burns
king@kestrel.ARPA (09/22/85)
In article <811@gitpyr.UUCP>, myke@gitpyr.UUCP (Myke Reynolds) writes: > I watched some of the PBS special on abortion. Even through all the > distortions of _Silent_Scream_, there was something about it, and > the pro-choice film that followed it, that deeply disturbed me.. All > those gruesome pictures of aborted children.. They didn't look like > fetuses, they looked like half developed babies?! The followup film > did a good job of countering every point the anti-abortion film made > *except* that. A rather large except in my mind. The PP film came out shortly after _Silent_Scream_, and had nothing to do with _Conceived_In_Liberty_, which came out even later. I noticed that this film said something like "The ages of the fetuses averaged X" and managed to show a few shots of fetuses FAR older than that. (Of course, you need a special lens on your camera to show a twelve week fetus - that must be why they didn't do it :-) ) As yet nobody knows where the fetuses in the dumpster came from. One strongly suspects they were doing something that is illegal under current law... -dick
aardvark@nmtvax.UUCP (09/22/85)
In article <> myke@gitpyr.UUCP (Myke Reynolds) writes: >Paul Dubuc writes: >>A fetus may not be a thinking human being (according to your definition) >>at a particular point in her life. But neither is the person who is >>unaware *at that particular point in her life*. > >I don't follow you here.. For a person to become a non-thinking being >(at least by the way I was considering this) would require s/he to die. >I know thats not what you meant, you can't kill a dead person, much less >without his knowing it.. What do you mean by thinking being? Buy yourself a roll of photographic film. Then take it to your nearest Fotomat and have them do the one hour job on it. Then complain bitterly when your pictures come out blank. If nothing has been put into the fetus, nothing comes out. The fetus becomes a thinking being (rather than an instinctual) when it is able to apply its experience and reason. Otherwise it's as eloquent as Fido. Experience *does* start in the womb, but if the fetus never gets to see the real world (ie aborted) it won't make any difference since it never knew it. With apologies to all RTLs. Bill ======================================================================== "Putts karam sheoba kitsch daboum"
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (09/26/85)
> (Of course, you need a special lens on your camera to show a > twelve week fetus - that must be why they didn't do it :-) )[DICK KING] How big does Mr. King think a twelve week fetus is? -- Matt Rosenblatt
bird@gcc-bill.ARPA (Brian Wells) (09/27/85)
In article <811@gitpyr.UUCP> myke@gitpyr.UUCP (Myke Reynolds) writes: >Brian Wells writes: >> Sure you could argue a line of demarcation at birth >>but I don't think it is a firm and immovable as a line at conception. >[go on down a little] >> My daughter was born six weeks >>early and she certainly looks human. According to all the classes and books >>I have had, she has looked human for a few months now even though she has >>been in the womb. If you had something else in mind, please explain. > >Do you have me and Rich Rosen mixed up? I never said abortions should be >legal anytime close to birth. They aren't now, and I certain never said they >should be! In your original posting, you mentioned that people could argue demarcation at birth, but that it would be arbitrary. My intention was to flow with that idea. I did not mean to imply that you held that particular position. I am curious though, why you included here the passage about my daughter while choosing to edit out the statement you had made prior to that about fetuses having no recognizably human features? I am still wondering what you had meant by that statement. Brian Wells
myke@gitpyr.UUCP (Myke Reynolds) (09/27/85)
aardvark@nmtvax.UUCP (Bill Gallagher) writes: >If nothing has been put into the fetus, nothing comes out. >The fetus becomes a thinking being (rather than an instinctual) >when it is able to apply its experience and reason. Otherwise >it's as eloquent as Fido. Experience *does* start in the womb, >but if the fetus never gets to see the real world (ie aborted) >it won't make any difference since it never knew it. Well, there are laws to protect dogs as well as humans, and I'm rather attached to mine. He understands a small subset of English words (40 maybe) and has real emotional depth.. I'm also attached to my cat who understand intonation, and if someone intentionally killed her I would react quite violently.. (perhaps even if it wasn't intentional..) I want to give the fetus more then benefit of a doubt, I want to protect it beyond the shadow of a doubt. Conception is obviously beyond the shadow of a doubt, 12 weeks is as well I think. I hope this is what lawmakes had in mind when they set a limit on how late an abortion can occur.. -- Myke Reynolds Office of Telecommunications and Networking Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!myke Where we are going and from whence we came are completly unknown to us... and personaly, I have no idea where I am now.
king@kestrel.ARPA (09/30/85)
In article <1739@brl-tgr.ARPA>, matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) writes: > > (Of course, you need a special lens on your camera to show a > > twelve week fetus - that must be why they didn't do it :-) )[DICK KING] > > How big does Mr. King think a twelve week fetus is? > > -- Matt Rosenblatt A few hundred grams or so. My point was that it was downright deceptive for SS to show 20-25 week fetuses while the voiceover was saying "... the coroner reports that the average age of the fetuses was twelve weeks ..." You don't need a special lens to photograph a 12 wk fetus, but it wouldn't make a very impressive show. I would guess that no feature that an embryologist could use to distinguish a human 12 wk fetus from that of another primate at a comparable stage of development would be visible in a TV picture taken with ordinary equipment. Has anyone asked themselves what kind of woman would have her abortion done under an ultrasound imager for the purpose of making an antiabortion film? Or did the do0ctor who made the film pull something out of his files? Did he routinely use ultrasound imaging when he performed abortions? Does he routinely televise his patients' private medical records? It wouldn't astound me if it came out someday that the SS ultrasound videotape was done on a monkey. (I am not, however making any such claim.) Certainly antiabortion activists aren't having themselves aborted to make such films :-) ! (Maybe it's a computer simulation - the state of the art is almost certainly good enough.) -dick
myke@gitpyr.UUCP (Myke Reynolds) (10/05/85)
(Brian Wells) writes: >>Do you have me and Rich Rosen mixed up? I never said abortions should be >>legal anytime close to birth. They aren't now, and I certain never said they >>should be! [me] > > In your original posting, you mentioned that people could argue >demarcation at birth, but that it would be arbitrary. Not arbitrary, both birth and conception are very distinct points. I don't think there exists any justification for putting a line of demarcation at either of these points however. Placing of a realistic line is to a large extent, arbitrary. There is no distinct point at which a fetus has a given level of mental activity (how could you measure it, and what would the measurement mean?), and deciding what level is too much is a value judgement that can be based on nothing but ethics, i.e. arbitrary. So you have arbitrary pile on top of the arbitrary. > I am curious though, why you included here the passage about my >daughter while choosing to edit out the statement you had made prior to that >about fetuses having no recognizably human features? I am still wondering >what you had meant by that statement. I just hate quoting myself all the time. -- Myke Reynolds Office of Telecommunications and Networking Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!myke Where we are going and from whence we came are completly unknown to us... and personaly, I have no idea where I am now.