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