Re: Any anti-abortion atheists?

"Craig Chilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:54:11 -0800,
> "Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >  Craig Chilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>  "golddodgearies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>  Craig Chilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>  Mushinronsha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>>>>    I am an atheist, and I have a problem accepting abortion.
> >>>>> When a fetus grows to the point that it becomes a human being,
> >>>>> I think it is wrong to have it's life terminated.
>
> >>>>     They **never** are.  A fetus becomes a human being at the
> >>>> moment of BIRTH.
>
> >>>     You stupid lying murderer. They have human parents from
> >>> conception.  Non-humans don't have human parents, idiot.
>
> >>     ALL human reproductive-process entities have human parents.
> >> INCLUDING the GAMETES that you hypocritically look the other
> >> way about even though a *quadrillion* of THOSE potential people
> >> are being electively aborted DAILY, worldwide... by men.
>
> >    No gamete can EVER become a person; no more so than oxygen
> > can become water.
>
>      Absolutely wrong.  EVERY person on earth once existed at the gamete
> stage -- 

Just like every water molecule once existed as at the oxygen stage....
uhuh.

> JUST as much as they existed at the zygote, embryo, and fetus
> stages.  And JUST as would be the case if a potential person's zygote
> were to die, that potential person NEVER would be born if one or both of
> the gametes that were part of his existence in the reproductive process
> were to die.

Slippery-slope.

>
>    For example.  In the following scenario, imagine a person living
> 10,000 years in the future, in a world where all the technology I'm
> about to describe could exist.
>
>    A man gets fed up with a business rival and decides that he not only
> wants to get rid of him, but would also would like to undo all of the
> damage that the man had done to him over the years.  Just having him
> killed would not accomplish the second objective, and also could land him
> in a 31st century clink.  So he hops into a time machine and goes back to
> the short time frame during which his rival had existed at the gamete
> stage.  And seeks out the man's father.  Then he aims a small device at
> that man which seems to have no ill effects on the man, himself.  in
> fact, ALL that the device does is home in on the specific gamete that was
> part of Stage One of his rival's reproductive process.  And vaporizes it.
>
>    The businessman then heads on home to the future, finds his business
> thriving, and, indeed, finds that his business rival has never existed.
>
>    So -- NO ethical problem, right?  After all, gametes never become
> people, right?

Gametes do not become people any more so than a steering wheel becomes a
Cadillac.

>
>    BOTTOM LINE:  While -- **fortunately** -- NO reproductive entities
> really are defensible, when unwanted.

Including the entity YOU?

> The Bible dosn't indicate
> otherwise, and our laws back that position.  But if they WERE, gametes,
> which are human, unique, and alive *potential* people

Gametes are NOT potential people as they can NEVER become a person.

> would be JUST
> as defensible as Stages 2, 3, and 4.  Thus, wne Anti-Choicers IGNORE
> those while *men* are electively aborting them at the rate of a *quad-
> rillion* per day, worldwide (compared to a mere 3,300 per day in the
> USA, by women), they are total HYPOCRITES.
>
> >>    Gametes -- just like the other 3 stages -- are human (adj.), living,
> >> unique *potential* people.
>
> >    See above.
>
>     By all means... DO see above!

I did; and what I see is that no gamete can EVER become a person; no more so
than oxygen can become water.

>
> >>    PERSONHOOD... the only thing that COUNTS...
> >> begins at BIRTH.
>
> >Apparently, NOT according to these folks:
> >http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2001/06/04/prsb0604.htm.
>
>    NOTE *this* comment from that story:
>
>    "In a dissenting opinion, Justice Robert L. Brown said he
> agreed with the lower court ruling that fetuses are not considered
> persons in wrongful death cases and disagreed that the 1999 law
> should be applied retroactively to cover just one case.
>
> " 'The majority's handling of this critically important social, cultural
> and moral issue is muddled," Justice Brown wrote.' "
>
>     And he's exactly RIGHT!

"Muddled" is a matter of opinion, thus has no right/wrong value.

>
> >    What is "birth" in your mind?
>
>     The same as the Bible clearly indicates in its passage dealing
> with BIRTrights, BIRTH order, and first-BORNS:   The beginning of
> PERSONHOOD, and the *first* time that a human entity has intrinsic
> value.

Petito principii. Precisely WHAT is the final requirement to constitute the
"birth" of a human entity?

>
>
>                    -- Craig Chilton    [EMAIL PROTECTED]