Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site whuxl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!whuxl!orb From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: Re: Abortion and the Law Message-ID: <218@whuxl.UUCP> Date: Fri, 14-Sep-84 09:04:27 EDT Article-I.D.: whuxl.218 Posted: Fri Sep 14 09:04:27 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 01:25:13 EDT References: <2297@dartvax.UUCP>, <3453@cbscc.UUCP>, <2322@dartvax.UUCP> <3661@cbscc.UUCP>, <207@whuxl.UUCP> <998@pyuxa.UUCP> Organization: Bell Labs Lines: 40 > Sevener put together the most amazing arguments I have ever seen on > this net. Just what in hell does SALT II have to do with the > abortion issue? > T. C. Wheeler the question of the World's right to life does indeed have to do with the question of the fetus' right to life. Anti-abortionists always couch their arguments in terms of the absolute right of the fetus to life. They usually then proceed (as Archbishop O'Connor recently did) to make the protection of the unborn's right to life their over-riding political concern above all other moral or political issues. By placing all their priority on one category of life (whether fetuses are actually human life or a part of the mother's body is the subject of great controversy) they ignore all other issues of protection of indisputably human life. There is no argument by right to life advocates that they themselves are human, or that people once they are born are alive. Indeed the usual crux of their arguments is to lend weight to their protection of fetal life by saying that if fetal life is not protected, then born life will not be protected in the future. They fail to ask the question, is human life protected now? Can we claim to be protecting ALL life, human, fetal or animal with nuclear weapons that will very likely lead to the extinction of all human life, much mammalian life, and nobody knows what other forms of life? Which has priority? The protection of SOME life which may or may not be considered to be human, or the protection of ALL life, born or unborn? How can one talk about the "right to life" and then ignore the nuclear threat to all human life? My answer to Paul Dubuc's question about which issue has priority (protection of fetal life or all life) has to be clear: the protection of ALL human and other life has to have priority since it includes the protection of fetal life and the possibility for humans to continue as a species whatsoever. I would like to see anti-abortionists address THIS issue of the right to life and not bury their heads in the sand saying it really doesn't matter. If the human species ceases to exist after a nuclear holocaust there will be no fetal life to protect. Tim Sevener Whippany, Bell Labs whuxl!orb