Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-spice.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-spice!tdn
From: tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: freedom/responsibility
Message-ID: <387@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 11-Jul-85 02:38:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-s.387
Posted: Thu Jul 11 02:38:07 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 15-Jul-85 06:49:54 EDT
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 49

> No, I don't think he is.  The question is: can the creature/lump of
> tissue (not BABY) survive without its mother? A newborn can.

As medical technology advances, it's becoming possible to take care of
premature babies (i.e. fetuses) outside of their mothers at earlier and
earlier stages.  The limiting factor is NOT that the fetus is, as you
claim, a "lump of tissue", but rather that our medical technology does
not provide as good an environment as that provided by the human body.

> It is too!  Your sperm cells contain genetic information different from
> yourself.  I'm sure you don't save them all (if you do, I don't want to
> know).  Is the genetic material so important?  Save it, implant it into an
> egg and put it into some "pro-lifer" woman.

Human sperm and egg cells contain only half the number of chromosomes that
the cells in the rest of the human body contain.  The information which they
do contain is a subset of the information in the other cells of the body.

The cells belonging to a fetus have the same number of chromosomes as the
cells of any other human being.  The chromosomes which the fetus has are not
a subset of the chromosomes of the mother or a subset of the chromosomes of
the father.  They contain information defining an individual who is distinct
from both his/her mother and his/her father.

> Furthermore, as an individual, who is more important? The woman who has
> gone through 16+ years of life, experience, and (possibly) contribution
> to society, or a fetus which has done nothing but grow inside her body?

In most pregnancies, it's not a matter of choosing the life of the woman
or the life of the baby.  In the cases where the pregnancy places the life
of the woman in immediate danger, most pro-lifers seem to agree that it is
OK to perform an abortion to save the life of the mother.  This is similar
to the case where a hospital can give an organ to one of two patients who
need it, and cannot get another organ in time to save the life of the other
patient.  No matter what the hospital does, at least one of the patients dies.

> We kill lots of living organisms.  The other day, I saw a car with two
> bumper stickers: ABORTION IS MURDER and MORE NUKES, LESS KOOKS.  I don't
> know how to take pro-lifers seriously anymore.  Such conditional morality
> dangerous. Why are fetuses, who's social value is purely sentimental
> and philisophical, so important when full grow people, who have made
> their make on life, so expendable? Its scary.

Have you ever heard of the concept of self-defense?  It is OK to kill someone
if it is necessary to stop them from killing you or some other innocent person.
Extended to the national level, it is OK for a nation to maintain armed forces
to defend itself and its allies against attacks from other countries.  Do you
really think that Hitler would have withdrawn German troops to the boundaries
of Germany and stopped the Holocaust if we had said 'Please act civilized'?