Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!sophie
From: sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Re: Torek's SECOND ANNUAL CONCLUSIVE ARGUMENT :->
Message-ID: <1346@mnetor.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 17-Jul-85 13:45:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: mnetor.1346
Posted: Wed Jul 17 13:45:24 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Jul-85 15:31:42 EDT
References: <789@umcp-cs.UUCP> <271@tove.UUCP>
Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 56

> It is quite difficult to determine when a fetus becomes sentient by
> your definition because of the limits of technology.  According to
> _The Zero People_[1], a 48 day old fetus will twist and turn away when
> his upper lip is stroked by a fine hair.  How long has he been able to
> do this?  The better our technology, the better we can test and the
> better we can detect such things.
> 
Just curiosity here:  how do you stroke a 48 day old fetus' upper lip
with a fine hair?

> Interestingly enough, it was scientific research (not the Catholic
> Church!) that was behind making abortion illegal.  A quote from
> _Abortion America_[2] tells the story:
> 
> 	"... the original nineteeenth-century laws in New York and
> 	elsewhere had been placed on the books mostly by doctors when
> 	there were few Catholics around."
> 
Scientists have never been know to be terribly compassionate or
understanding of women's problems.  It is interesting to hear that they
were responsible for making abortion illegal, but frankly, I don't find
that too surprising.  "Scientists" are also responsible for nuclear
weapons.

> _To Rescue the Future_[3] gives a little more information:
> 
> 	"Most state abortion laws stricken by the Roe v. Wade decision
> 	date from the latter half of the nineteenth century.  Their
> 	implemenation was the result of what has been called the
> 	Physicians' Crusade, the determination of the leadership of
> 	the American Medical Association to protect the life of the
> 	unborn from abortion except in those instances where an
> 	abortion was needed to preserve the life of the mother.  There
> 	is no evidence that great controversy surrounded the passage
> 	of these laws.  At the time there was a general consensus
> 	against taking of innocent life, and the laws were sought by a
> 	portion of the country's professional elite."
> 
Don't forget that at that time, the "country's professional elite" were
all men.  No surprise there either.  How could there have been "great
controversy"?  women's opinions were never seeked anyway.  Actually
women usually didn't seek men's opinions to have abortions either.

> [1] Hensley, Jeff Lane (editor), _The Zero People_. Sevant Books, Ann
> Arbor, 1983, center pages.
> 
> [2] Nathenson, Bernard, _Aborting America_.  Life Cycle Books,
> Toronto, Canada, 1979, p 52.
> 
> [3] Andrusko, Dave, (editor), _To Rescue the Future_.  Life Cycle
> Books, Toronto, Canada, 1983, p 69.
> -- 
> Liz Allen    U of Maryland   ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz   liz@tove.ARPA
-- 
Sophie Quigley
{allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie