To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 7158
7157  |  7159
Subject: 
Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:04:29 GMT
Reply-To: 
johnneal@%saynotospam%uswest.net
Viewed: 
757 times
  
Frank Filz wrote:

John Neal wrote:

I know Larry has called for sitting out this one, but I've got an
interesting comment here...

One does have to be a bit carefull about protecting the "potential" of
human life. I read a short story once which took this idea to an
extreme. In the society depicted in the short story, it was illegal to
use contraceptives because they denied the egg and sperm the potential
of creating life

Yes, this can get a little crazy.  When I say potential, I mean the potential of an
*already* fertilized egg which has a specific genetic code in place.  I think I can
safely argue the potentiality of a fertilized egg without having to consider the
potentiality of all of the *un*fertilized eggs and sperm.  The potential argument is
useful when people start talking about "non sentient tissue structures", because a
fetus is more than that, and its potential is the reason.

That is why I mentioned the IUD, which was a birth control method which allowed eggs
to be fertilized, but prevented them from lodging into the uterine wall.

(never mind that it was known that a pregnancy would
probably kill the woman). In fact, I want to say that I remember that
the society was even moving towards a state where not having sex at all
was considered a denial of the potential.

Now that would seem to be a ridiculous extreme (though I'm not
absolutely sure that such hasn't been called for, certainly there are
religions which preach that use of contraceptives is to deny god's
will). I think it is interesting to examine extreme cases though.

Yes, and in my mind the case of pregnancy as a result of rape is definitely a
litmus.  I am queasy about forcing a woman to carry to term a child conceived under
these conditions.  In those cases, I guess I would advocate the taking of the
"morning after" pill after the assault and never even test whether there was a
pregnancy or not.

Sometimes the extreme case will show out the flaw in an argument (this
particular short story certainly showed out that if one bought those
arguments, then one accepted that the potential of future life was more
important than the potential of existing life, one needs to then ask if
that is what one really intends).

Agreed.

-John






Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
 
(...) I know Larry has called for sitting out this one, but I've got an interesting comment here... One does have to be a bit carefull about protecting the "potential" of human life. I read a short story once which took this idea to an extreme. In (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

279 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR