Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site faron.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!linus!faron!pws
From: pws@faron.UUCP (Phillip W. Servita)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Society has already decided what a legal human being is
Message-ID: <181@faron.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Dec-84 14:27:45 EST
Article-I.D.: faron.181
Posted: Thu Dec  6 14:27:45 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 16-Dec-84 04:42:59 EST
Reply-To: pws@faron.UUCP (Philip W. Servita)
Organization: MITRE Corp., Bedford, Ma.
Lines: 49

In article  pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes:


>Here you're treating the fetus as if it were in its fully developed state 
>(comparing it to an adult pig) as if it will never be anything more.  If your
>going to say that a humans right to life depends on their mental capacity
>at a certain point in time (knowing full well it will develop in the future)
>you could run into problems. Suppose a physical condition (sickness, whatever)
>impares you mental ability for a time.   At that point in time you might
>fall below the threshold and by your criteria you could be killed rather
>than treated no matter how likely the treatment would make your future
>recovery.  If the future state of the mind is not a consideration for the
>fetus why should it be for you?  You see, we do recognise the right for
>people to live in such cases and when we do we are taking their future
>condition into account.  Why should your potential for recovery from sickness
>be recognised if the potential for mental capacity isn't for the fetus?
>


   You are making some assumptions about what WE think here. maybe YOU 
recognize the right for people to 'metabolize' (not live) in such cases,
but *I* do not. Suppose i am in such a state. Then my parents, friends,
spouse, etc. has the right to give such treatment or not, depending on
whether they feel they want me around. I will have no knowledge of the 
situation, and certainly cannot be hurt by the decision made. As far as 
I am concerned, THAT WHICH HAS NO CONSCIOUSNESS HAS NO RIGHTS. If object
"x" has no consciousness, then object "x" has no rights. whether or not 
object "x" WILL HAVE consciousness is of NO BEARING to the principle. 
of course, person/group Y has the right to defend object "x", PROVIDED
Y TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR "x", and PROVIDED THAT Y DOES NO HARM TO 
ANYTHING ELSE WITH RIGHTS.


(flames DO belong here, not net.philosophy, ill be glad to shoot you down)

   Unfortunately, only recently have the laws regarding such cases have
begun to recognize this principle.


                                 -the venn buddhist

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"if people knew how to fly, they wouldnt want to walk their dogs"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"if people knew how to fly, they wouldnt want to walk their dogs"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------