Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site hou2b.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!hou2b!gkm
From: gkm@hou2b.UUCP (G.MCNEES)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Beginning of personhood
Message-ID: <343@hou2b.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 26-Sep-84 15:29:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: hou2b.343
Posted: Wed Sep 26 15:29:59 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Sep-84 04:58:19 EDT
References: <157@scc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 22


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
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.
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