jj@rabbit.UUCP (03/08/84)
Take this, O infamous eater of great netnews whizdom. This is excerpted, I believe in strict context: From alice!allegra!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!ihnp1!dolan Wed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969 So the pertinent points seem to be: a. All human beings have the right to live. b. An unborn child is a human being from the moment of conception with the right to her/his life. c. Human beings only forfeit their right to live when they place the physical life of another human being in danger. ------------ The falicy in these statements is the "point" that "An unborn child is a human being from the moment of conception ... " Many people, myself included, do NOT believe that an fetus is a "human being" until that fetus can survive OUTSIDE THE WOMB with no extraordinary mechanical support. <Incubators don't count, even for preemies.> When this point is considered, the other "pertinent points " are shown to be moot. The deliberate action of calling a fetus a person/human from the instant of conception is a deliberate debating technique that is intended to sucker the opponent into stipulating the most important facts in the argument. The issue of when a fetus becomes human is NOT, and will not likely be in the near future, determined/determinable, and references like the above, which require stipulation of a given OPINION are not, in fact, fair or constructive arguments. The "pro-life" forces quite naturally wish to argue from the grounds most favorable to them. I object to their using the term "human" for a fetus, and I also object to the deliberate equating of abortion with murder. It is a simple step, and one that has occasionally already been taken, to extend this argument to the individual egg and sperm cells, thus making any failed attempt at intercourse murder. Please note: I do NOT stipulate that a 1 day old fetus is human. Please base your arguments on either convincing me otherwise (on physical grounds, not religious grounds) or on an argument that recognizes that I do NOT accept your defination of human. -- TEDDY BEARS ARE NICER THAN PEOPLE-- HUG YOUR OWN TODAY ! (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jj
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (03/09/84)
Why don't incubators count, JJ? Is there any good reason? Also, if you are going to say that we are not humans from the moment of conception, then I think you should tell us what we *are* until we are viable. It won't do for us to have separate definitions of human life if we are going to decide who (excuse me--*what*) we are going to kill or not. You require us to defend our defintion. Have you offered any support for yours? Paul Dubuc
jj@rabbit.UUCP (03/09/84)
I DID explain my position. You even read it, Paul, because you asked "Why don't incubators count?" The reason I said "incubators don't count" is that I don't regard an incubator as an extraordinary method of keeping the fetus <now a child, by my standards> alive. I regard extraordinary measures as things like in-vitro birth (yeah, I know it's not available, and if it was, that would indeed be a viable alternative to abortion in some cases.), artificial wombs <slightly different from the above>, heart/lung/kidney support, and the like. Basically, if the fetus can breathe, pump its own blood, digest its own food, and keep its own metabolism functioning, it's no longer a fetus, it's a baby, and it should be treated as a human. (I don't regard needing someone else to GET the food as a lack of humanity, so don't bother using the usual emotionally loaded sophistry to kill off all the 3 year old humans, please.) Clearly, if the mother WANTS extraordinary measures, she should be allowed to request them. Likewise for the father, or for anyone who WANTS the fetus to grow into humanity. <In other words, if you want to save the fetus, grow it into a human, and take responsibility for its life, you're welcome to do so, assuming that there isn't an overriding medical problem, such as non-viable deformation or difficulty in freeing the fetus from the mother <and endangering the mother in the process>. The definition given here is no different that the one that you claim I didn't give in the last article. I'm NOT going to argue about the definition, simply because I will not argue matters of your faith. You are welcome to hold the members of your faith to the tenets of that faith, but please do not expect me to agree with, or act by, them. On another note, referring to the individual who comments that many pregnancies are the result of "incautious behavior". I find your argument <not Paul's, please note, I forgot your name> quite offensive. You use pregnancy as a tool to punish people who are not of your own belief regarding sexual behavior, a behavior which is EXACTLY equivelant to inflicting YOUR religious punishment on someone who does not believe in your religion. <Please see history for other examples of the same. See the coliseum and Torqumada for two examples, perhaps.> -- TEDDY BEARS ARE NICER THAN PEOPLE-- HUG YOUR OWN TODAY ! (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jj
dolan@ihnp1.UUCP (Mike Dolan) (03/10/84)
The response from "rabbit!jj" (Sorry, I don't have a name) that stated that there was a fallacy in my statements about the "moment of conception" needs just a little clarification. First, I was not suggesting that my three points be considered ground rules that the discussion had to work from. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. I was trying to establish the basis for most pro-life arguments. I will accept the fact that you do not agree with my point of view about an unborn child being a human being from the moment of conception. I posed the problem, for those who do not accept the moment of conception as the beginning of a human being, of defining what it was between the moment of conception and birth which did make the "it" a human being. It appears that "rabbit!jj" believes that being able to exist outside the womb without "extraordinary mechanical support" is the criteria for being a human being. Against that position I argue that you must apply your criteria evenly and across the board. By the above definition of "human being", I cannot claim that someone in a critical care facility in a hospital is a human being if that someone is depending upon "extraordinary mechanical support." I cannot, therefore, accept that definition. Please reconcile my argument with your definition. Have a good day, Mike Dolan AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville IL ihnp4!ihnp1!dolan
rcd@opus.UUCP (03/10/84)
> Also, if you are going to say that we are not humans from the moment > of conception, then I think you should tell us what we *are* until > we are viable... It should be adequately clear to both sides that it is not AGREED that a fetus is the same as a human. Both sides see a relation, but they do not agree that fetus = human. The pro-choice side says that there is a difference which is significant enough to justify different treatment. BUT, that doesn't mean that the pro-choice faction says that a fetus is not human. (I posted something related on the "fallacy of black and white" - equivalently, a "law of the excluded middle" discussion.) The logical error of the anti-choice faction is to say, "If you say we aren't human, then that means we're not human..." and off we go into viability, brain waves, and a whole counterproductive set of non-issues. It just isn't a yes-no issue, and no amount of arguing can reduce the total wondrous character of "what is human" to a single question with a single yes-no answer! I won't make humanity that cheap. -- {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd
jj@rabbit.UUCP (03/11/84)
Mike, I posted this because you asked me to. Your question, as you may well be aware, is irrelevant. A human being on a heart/lung machine is ALREADY a human being. Enough said. More thought next time, please, and less sophistry?? -- TEDDY BEARS ARE NICER THAN PEOPLE-- HUG YOUR OWN TODAY ! (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jj