Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watmath.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!saquigley
From: saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: The myth of humanity (moral article)
Message-ID: <7167@watmath.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 3-Mar-84 11:10:52 EST
Article-I.D.: watmath.7167
Posted: Sat Mar  3 11:10:52 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 4-Mar-84 01:45:02 EST
References: <7053@watmath.UUCP>, <1895@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 69


>From Brad Templeton:
> When the brain is dead, the law says the person is dead.  In is the mind
> that distinguishes us from the animals and makes us special.  So here is
> my proposed definition:

> Human cells are not a person unless there is (or has been, with the
> possible chance of remission) a developed human mind of capability beyond
> that of the animals we kill for sport, food or experimentation.

> Paul Dubuc:
> Also there are regular times during our lives when we have no measurable
> brain activity (i.e. "dreamless sleep").  According to your criteria I might
> be justified in killing someone during this time.  Especially since (as you
> seem to imply in the case of the fetus) it makes no difference that brain
> activity will occur in that individual's future.

I suggest Paul, that you read Brad's definition more carefully before you start
drawing sensationalist conclusions that are not there.  Any pro-choice argument
can be turned and pushed to apply to living people:  "so, if we allow the
killing of fetuses for such and such reasons, then why can't we kill people for
the same reason?".   This seems to imply that killing people is worse than
killing fetuses; well, if it is, we can simply not allow it.  We have the power
to make up our own laws.  

> Your comparison with anamals is interesting.  We have laws to protect animals.
> I can get into a lot of trouble for shooting deer out of season, or even killing
> a stray dog.  If you say that a fetus (up to a certain point) is on the
> level with animals, why don't they get as much protection?

Many of these laws protecting animals such as the hunting season laws are there
for other purposes than stopping the animals from getting killed.  They are
there to save the animals from being extinct, to make sure that they have a time
when they can reproduce, so that there will be more animals to kill in the next
humting season.  The laws to stop the killing of stray dogs are there to protect
the dog's owner's right to have his/her dog alive, and also to make sure that
people don't start shooting in public places and to avoid cruelty to animals. 
The only rights so far that animals have is the right to not be subjected to
cruelty, and the right to life if they happen to be an endangered species, and
only the last one is enforced.  All other laws protecting animals are there to
benefit people.  I do not think you can draw an analogy with fetuses here.

> I'm glad this discussion has started on the right issue.  That is whether or
> not the fetus is a human being.  It's a shame that we are only facing up
> to it after abortion has been legalized.  From my observations, it seems that
> the "pro-choice" camp has never really cared about facing this issue--only
> avoiding it.  Why have we taken the path that says "let's legalize abortion
> now (because we feel it's a woman's right) and figure out later whether or
> not the fetus is a human with rights of it's own"?  If we ever determine that
> it is, is there any easy way back?  Or will we keep trying to find more
> justification for our decision to avoid the realization that we have been
> wrong in our estimation of such an important matter has human life.

No, there is not A RIGHT issue.  The abortion problem is more complicated than
deciding whether a fetus is a person or not;  like it or not, the fetus lives
in the mother, and the fact that a woman is pregnant does not make her less of
a person than the fetus.  Even if the fetus was a person, it would still not be
obvious that the mother has no say as to what lives in her body.  The question
"in which circumstances can killing be allowed?" would still remain.  There
are many more factors involved in this debate, such as quality of life, the
right of people to control their bodies and their health and social
repercussions of allowing or not allowing abortion.  The question of whether a
fetus is a human being is very important in this debate, but it is only PART of
the debate, it is not THE debate.  Simplifying the question will not work.  I
think YOU are the one who is refusing to accept that it is a more complicated
question than you would like it to be.

				Sophie Quigley
			...!{decvax,allegra}!watmath!saquigley