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