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: Beginning of personhood Message-ID: <9472@watmath.UUCP> Date: Thu, 18-Oct-84 19:26:00 EDT Article-I.D.: watmath.9472 Posted: Thu Oct 18 19:26:00 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 21-Oct-84 09:27:42 EDT References: <157@scc.UUCP>, <343@hou2b.UUCP> Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 32 > >Seriously, why draw the line at birth? > >A child/baby is dependent upon its parents for some time. Why not >permit "choice" beyond birth? If the parents choose to get rid of >the baby why shouldn't they have the right. (By the way, this is not >a new notion: it was quite popular for this to be done especially to >one of the sexes in past civilizations.) After all, a baby has Still popular (but illegal) in rural china from what I have heard. >very little ability to defend itself, isn't really much of a >"person", can't vote, etc. Must mooch off the parents, ie live in >their house, eat their food etc. Also some of the little twirps are >really accidental, aren't they? I'd like some comment on what is so >special about birth other than it being a well defined time period. >After all, there isn't much difference in the entity some time >before and after birth, as far a science has been able to >determine. There is one main difference: before birth the child lives inside another person's body and if that person just does not want an intruder in her body, then she has a right to get rid of it. This argument is not valid anymore after birth. >You may say that the baby could be adopted- however, this casts >aspersions on the parents and in addition causes an increased tax >burden on us "innocent" "pure" and "celibate" tax payers! > > gary huh? Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley