To: M. Arthur
From: Me
Subject: Re: reply to abortion page
Date: 4/25/00
Cc:
At 05:47 PM 4/25/00 -0400, you wrote:
>I assume you wrote the page on abortion. I would just like to say that I
>think what you said was wrong and rude. When you said "Anyone who would
>sentence a woman to prison or the death penalty for eliminating a microscopic
>single celled organism from her body at this stage should seek out a padded
>cell and professional psychiatric help", you were being rude. The reason
>being is that I believe that if a woman has an abortion she SHOULD be put in
>prison. She is taking the life of her baby, although you say "it doesn't look
>like a human being", it does not mean it is not human being. Abortion is
>murder, no matter what stage of the pregnancy.
Dear Mr. Arthur,
Yes I did write that page. I said in the first sentence of that page
that I was voicing my opinion. If you think it's rude to voice an opinion,
you are entitled to your opinion - although according to you, maybe you
aren't. See below for my comments...
Your words "no matter what stage of the pregnancy" is precisely the irrational
viewpoint I was trying to illustrate. At the point of conception, the "baby"
doesn't look like anything. In fact it's so small that unless you have
extraordinarily good eyesight, you can't see it at all, and it is certainly not a
human being by any stretch of the imagination. I was trying to get at what I think
is the central point of the issue. That central point is the difference between
"life" and the "potential for life." In order to discuss womens rights before and
during pregnancy rationally, I think it's important to make the distinction.
For example; suppose that a lab technician has two petri dishes. One petri dish
contains some sperm cells, and the other contains an egg cell.
1. Do you agree that at this point, it's Ok for the lab technician to flush the
contents of both petri dishes down the toilet, and no harm done?
2. What if the technician mixes the contents of the two petri dishes together
before flushing them down the toilet. Is he now a criminal and subject to
execution or prison?
3. Is the technician a criminal if he mixes the contents of the two petri dishes
together, and implants the fertilized egg cell (assuming it was impregnated by a
sperm cell) into a womans uterus?
Suppose the woman was unable to have a baby without artificial insemination?
>The baby is not like a blood
>cell, you're right, blood cells do reproduce, but they are nothing like a
>baby, they are not a human being and they will never be one. So, comparing a
>baby to a blood cell is totally off.
Actually, blood cells cannot reproduce, and I never said they could. I said that
cancer cells and other tumors can reproduce. Blood cells are manufactured in the
bone marrow. However, blood cells could most definitely become a human being. Have
you ever heard of cloning? In any case, I'm not comparing a blood or tumor cell
to a baby - I'm comparing them to a fertilized egg cell. There's a big difference.
According to the dictionary, a baby is a "newborn" (or newly born), an egg cell is not.
>I also believe that whoever believes
>that it is the woman's body and it is her choice, needs psychiatric help!
>God's word is the the word that needs to be followed, not a scientist or
>another person. Every child is from God, and it is his decision to take us
>back..not ours, and not our mothers, even if we are microscopic!
> M. Arthur
>
If you truly believe that all potential human life should be protected by law,
then you must also believe that rape should be legal, because a rapist is trying
to fulfill the life potential of his sperm and that of the victims eggs.
Do you also believe that God's word needed to be followed in Hosea 13:16, in which
He commanded that the Samarian's "infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their
women with child shall be ripped up"?
Anxiously awaiting your response,
-- Ron
