Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!flink
From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Torek's SECOND ANNUAL CONCLUSIVE ARGUMENT :->
Message-ID: <789@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 9-Jul-85 21:32:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.789
Posted: Tue Jul  9 21:32:10 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 10-Jul-85 19:17:10 EDT
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 46

In my view there are two crucial issues in the abortion debate; I
intend to discuss one of them.  The one I will NOT discuss right
now is this "pro-choice" argument as stated by a "pro-life"r:

> (a) If I don't want the baby, it must be "trespassing", and
> therefore it's OK to kill it (analogue to property rights) 

I have discussed this before; my view, stated without repeating
my argument, is that argument (a) is valid only in rape cases.
What I want to do is advocate an answer to the even more controversial
question
	"when, or under what conditions, in the development of
	an individual of the species Homo sapiens, does it
	become a proper object of concern or protection (and
	how much and what sort of concern and protection)?"

This question is deliberately phrased to go right to the heart of the 
issue; questions about what constitutes "humanity" or "life" are 
avoided AS THEY ARE NOT THE ULTIMATE ISSUES.  The question is not
meant to exclude the (important) possibility of multi-part answers
such as "type of protection 1 becomes appropriate at time a, while
type of protection 2 becomes so at time b".  Nor is it meant to exclude
the (in my view unimportant) possibility of person-relative answers
according to which it depends on one's tastes.  (For those who insist
on such an approach, think of the question as asking about YOUR concern
and protection -- AND MINE, if you want to change my mind!)  

This question is important regardless of whether argument (a) is correct.
Some abortions result in a live fetus/infant, which is then allowed to
die in some cases when it would be technically possible to maintain it.
If fetuses of that stage of development are (generally) proper objects
of concern or protection (as I would argue), it may be that doctors or
hospitals should save them or even that they should be required by law
to do so.  Also, even if (as per (a)) one has a *right* to "expel a 
trespasser", the individual woman might want to consider my question.

This is getting long, so I'll give my answer now and save the reasons
for later.  As far as depriving it of life, an individual H. sapiens
merits comparable concern and protection to that given adults, AS SOON
AS IT BECOMES SENTIENT (i.e. capable of an experience of any sort (sight,
touch, pain, etc.)) if it can be expected to live to be a normal adult.
("Normal" in any sense that is considered ethically relevant to the 
concern and protection for adults -- an issue I would like to beg by
simply assuming that I can here apply whatever the right view is there.)

OK netland, you can flame away now. 			--Paul V Torek