Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: notesfiles Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!hp-pcd!hpfcla!ajs From: ajs@hpfcla.UUCP Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: The Embryo a Parasite? (metaphysica Message-ID: <47700004@hpfcla.UUCP> Date: Sun, 11-Mar-84 14:32:00 EST Article-I.D.: hpfcla.47700004 Posted: Sun Mar 11 14:32:00 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 14-Mar-84 19:23:43 EST References: <1936@cbscc.UUCP> Organization: Hewlett-Packard Fort Collins Systems Division - Fort Collins, CO Lines: 66 Nf-ID: #R:cbscc:-193600:hpfcla:47700004:000:3118 Nf-From: hpfcla!ajs Mar 11 11:32:00 1984 >From cbscc!pmd: > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a parasite is a *foriegn* organism that > lives inside it's host and is also harmful to the normal bodily functions. An embryo or fetus is a foreign organism. Study your biology. Often it is harmful to the host's "normal bodily functions", especially if you consider their mental state and future life. > So are we then to determine whether or not the embryo is a parasite > subjectively, based on the woman's point of view? I think not. A parasite > is a parasite. An embryo is also a parasite in the literal sense, not a subjective one. Most of the time the host chooses to nurture it, for obvious reasons. > Also, I do not think you can compare pregnancy to a parasitic infection > because it is not that. It is a normal biological function. Parasites are a normal biological function. They are merely perceived as abnormal by their hosts (us). Your argument is weak at best. > We can say that the tapeworm does not belong in our intestine. But we > cannot say that the human embryo does not belong in its mother's womb. Both belong where they are, in the natural scheme of things. So what? > There is nothing that is added to the embryo... to make it more human as > time goes on... A tapeworm will never be a human. A sperm and egg will never be human unless united. An embryo will never be human unless carried to term. Again, so what? > I would say that anyone has the right to remove anything they want from > their body, but not when it results in the death of another human being. As usual, this otherwise-reasonable statement depends on a very weak assumption, that a fetus has the same status as a human being. My counter argument is that forcing women to carry unwanted fetuses would in effect give the fetus's rights priority over the women's. How ludicrous. > (Yes I will keep calling the fetus, zygote, embryo, whatever a human > being until it is proved otherwise.) What could possibly convince you? What exactly is a human being, then, if a human can also be a blob of protoplasm that looks more like a fetal pig, or dog, than a grown adult? Meanwhile, your presumptive, prejudicial use of the term merely undermines the rest of your argument. > You have defined (natural) human reproduction out of existence. Let's > deal with the way things really work. I heartily agree. That's why I argue in favor of the human right to abortion. As I've said before: Until society can provide either an infallible means of contraception, OR a way to remove, keep alive, and take responsibility for unwanted fetuses and the children that result, without infringing on the rights and freedoms of the pregnant women -- until that time, women MUST have the right to abortion. That is the essence of it. All moral arguments aside, the sheer weight of disagreement on this subject should lead anti-abortionists to some logical conclusions... That legislating against it would force their morals on many others, and that any such laws would be unenforceable. The "cure" would be worse than the "disease". Alan Silverstein