Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihnp1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!ihnp1!dolan
From: dolan@ihnp1.UUCP (Mike Dolan)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: killing human beings
Message-ID: <215@ihnp1.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 8-Mar-84 12:31:43 EST
Article-I.D.: ihnp1.215
Posted: Thu Mar  8 12:31:43 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 9-Mar-84 02:11:14 EST
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 71


For the record, I am serious in my question about the killing of
human beings.  What I was responding to is the notion that we might
go ahead and admit that an unborn child is a human being, but hold
to the position that we can use a different set of standards when
deciding to kill him/her.  I probably should have included the
portions of the article that I was responding to, but I didn't have
immediate access to it.  My apologies.

The point that I am very serious about is the notion that we might
use different standards for allowing human beings to live.  As soon
as I or anyone else decides that we have the right to choose to
allow a particular class of human beings to live or die, the door is
opened to arbitrary choices about the right to live.  We can decide
that human beings over age 65 should be "terminated" (a favorite
word of pro-abortionists).  We can decide that anyone with cancer
should be killed.  We can decide that anyone with a physical
malformation should be killed (then we get to decide what constitutes
a sufficient malformation).  

This is the basic point of the pro-life segment: No one has the
right to arbitrarily take another human life.  If a life-threatening
situation exists, the right of self-defense comes into play (such as
in a tubal pregnancy).  These are all standard laws of our society. 
This is why we pro-lifers make such a point about the unborn child
being a human being with all the rights of any other human being. 
No one has ever shown that an unborn child is not a human being. 
There seems to be little argument that a newly born child is a human
being with the right to live.  No one has ever pointed to something
during development within the womb and said that that is where the
"blob" became a human being.  

So the pertinent points seem to be:
	a. All human beings have the right to live.
	b. An unborn child is a human being from the moment of
	   conception with the right to her/his life.
	c. Human beings only forfeit their right to live when they
	   place the physical life of another human being in danger.

------------

As an interesting additional point:

Some pro-abortionists claim that they are saving the child from a
life of being unloved.  It is difficult to reconcile that opinion
with the fact that the most miserable, crippled, orphaned child in
the streets of Calcutta fights with everything he/she has in a daily
struggle to cling to his/her life.

-------------

An additional point:
	It is a well-known debating technique to impune the 
	integrity/intellectual ability/sincerity of an opponent
	when one finds it difficult to oppose the other's
	arguments.

	For all of us:  Please, let us concentrate on the points
	each of us is trying to make.  Leave the name calling out
	of our debates.  And if we make mistakes in interpreting
	what each other is saying, let us acknowledge and correct
	those mistakes cheerfully.  Even though I have never met
	any of you personally and disagree with some ideas, I have
	high regard for you as individuals.  Let's keep this 
	friendly!

Y'all have a good day,
Mike Dolan
AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
ihnp4!ihnp1!dolan