Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!lipman From: lipman@decwrl.UUCP Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Abortion Message-ID: <5823@decwrl.UUCP> Date: Fri, 2-Mar-84 01:04:47 EST Article-I.D.: decwrl.5823 Posted: Fri Mar 2 01:04:47 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 25-Feb-84 15:47:35 EST Sender: lipman@decwrl.UUCP Organization: DEC Western Research Lab, Los Altos, CA Lines: 100 From: squirt::arndt Greetings again. I was trying to send a message on this topic this afternoon and I hit the wrong key. That sent it along before I was finished. So here goes again. The point about abortion that I was trying to make is that from a rational viewpoint, it seems to me, it is nothing less than the stopping of human biological life. And once a reason is allowed to be used for the taking of that life, then that reason should be good for any place along the continuum of biological life from the moment of conception to whatever age before an otherwise "natural" death. Please let me attempt to explain. You may recall that I stated that it seems self-evident to me that even the first few cells after conception ARE human and ARE living. That is, they are not cat or dog cells, but genetically HUMAN. Also they are not non-living like a rock, but ARE alive. Ergo, whatever else abortion is it IS the stopping of human biological life. I can't at the moment think of an argument in FAVOR of abortion that would not also apply to a three year old or a thirty three year old. For example: -unwanted, unloved, doesn't that apply to bag ladies or some little kids? or you or me at times. Is it really a solution to kill me if you don't want me? If it is a solution then let's be honest and kill ANYONE who we don't want and gets in our way. (Remember now, I'm taking the position that there is no difference biologically between the first few cells and the old man. Those that favor abortion and object to killing "born" children for the reasons they give for killing "unborn" children must posit some difference. But what difference could there be? A "soul"? Prove it. And isn't that a religious issue? But I don't hear pro-abortion people give religious reasons for abortion. Could size be a difference. But then would that be like saying tall/bigger makes more human? At that extra cell would a blob, it, fetus, become human? Or put another way, at what tick of the clock does non-human become human? Location? Is a fetus not human because it is inside a womb? It seems to me that it is still biologically human. How does it by changing location "being born" become worthy of biological life? What about when it is half in and half out of a woman's body? Can't survive on it's own? But then neither can you or I. We all need nurishment. Can a newborn survive on it's own? If you could kill a biological human a few hours ago, why not now after it's born? Does many hours make the needed difference? That is, in the first trimester? Again, then at what tick of the clock does it become wrong to kill biological human life? Why is nine months the line? A few cells are only potentially human? They ARE biologically human and what people are really saying here is they are not a given age. The few cells are certainly not potentially alive. And remember, they are not cat or dog cell, but genetically contain everything needed to describe the human species. A three year old is potentially thirty three and we are all potentially dead. Of course we are really not talking about a few cells when we talk about abortion. At the time most women find out they are pregnant and go ahead with abortions "it" looks very human. So much so that the doctor must put "it" together like a jigsaw puzzle when he's done in order to make sure nothing was left behind. He counts the arms and legs, etc. With the use of saline solution the mother can sometimes feel "it" kick and squirm as "it" burns to death. Sorry, but it's true. So what IS the difference between a fetus and an old man? Maybe a fetus doesn't know so much. But how do you tell when biological human life passes the exam? I went to school with some . . . I think the only things that come close-but don't make it- ane that the fetus can't speak up for itself and we are not used to seeing them around break dancing.) - Back to reasons why an abortion is ok. - It's my body or choice reason. I've never heard a woman, though I supose there may be a few, say I want an abortion because I don't want the fetus inside my body. That is , it would be ok if it were in a dish or something. So control of my body must mean I don't want the fetus because it is a fetus or potential baby. But why can't a three year old be a drain on my body or a cramp on my style. I've been up late at night with a sick baby, why couldn't I have killed it and gone back to sleep? Again, where is the difference between a fetus and a baby? More reasons that are no reasons for abortion. There is a socially acceptable way to get rid of the body and I don't have to actually do it myself. is about enough for now. Somebody pleeae give me a logical reason for not taking human life other than self defense. A mother killing her unborn child is not self defense unless her life is in danger, right? Not just because the kid will be a pain. The value of a life is another life I would think. So it would take another life on the other side of the scale to balance out. Abortion is the modern way to play the game of "would you kill a chinaman on the other side of the world for some amount of money if all you had to do was push a button". If you say yes, then why couldn't the chinaman kill you? If you won't allow that then you must find some way to show the chinaman is not really the same as you- human. Think of all the world problems we could solve if we could extend abortion to all biological human life. Tell me why we should not. I eagerly await instruction. :-) Ken