Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!liz From: liz@umcp-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Whats so morally relevant about humans? Message-ID: <414@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Sat, 2-Jul-83 13:20:50 EDT Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.414 Posted: Sat Jul 2 13:20:50 1983 Date-Received: Sun, 3-Jul-83 04:25:56 EDT References: <220@watdaisy.UUCP> Organization: Univ. of Maryland, Computer Science Dept. Lines: 49 From watdaisy!cbostrum Wed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969 So get off the "when is a foetus human?" and "is it killing or not?" already! Abortion is killing a human, simple. NOW, is this WRONG? ... What are the necessary morally relevant criteria for possessing a right to life? ... Further, what do they have to do with merely being human? I fail to see a necessary connection here. So we are human? BIG DEAL! How does this make us morally special? This is a religious question and a matter of belief. Are humans morally special in some way different from the animals in the world around us? I think most of us act like this even if we haven't verbalized the difference. The laws of the US support this in that the cause of any human death (after birth, anyway) must always be known or found out whereas if my cat dies there is no such concern. Try this line. The possession of a right seems to involve that everyone else be required to honor your will with respect to certain items. ... *** What possible sense can this make if I am not a being who is capable of willing anything at all? *** My cat is a being that has a will and she wants to live. But killing a pet is not murder. Now the big question. Can a foetus will in this morally relevant sense? I dont think it can, so I do not feel that abortion is murder and I am not against abortion on those grounds. How do you know it can't? The instinct for survival is very strong. Even if it can't, it will be able to will if it does survive. Think of someone who is comatose for a while but survives. While they are comatose, they are no more able to will than the foetus. Do they cease to be "morally special" for a while? Your argument is not really that different from other arguments about the state of the foetus not being a person (others say human) in the full sense of the word. I object to such arguments not only because they endanger the foetus, but there always seem to be some other group of people who would not have full personhood by the same argument. Such arguments endanger their rights as well -- where will the line be drawn? -Liz Allen