Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mit-vax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!mit-vax!csdf
From: csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: freedom/responsibility
Message-ID: <329@mit-vax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Jul-85 16:12:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-vax.329
Posted: Mon Jul  8 16:12:51 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Jul-85 07:27:27 EDT
References: <385@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA>
Reply-To: csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe)
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 67
Summary: 

In article <385@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> (Thomas Newton) writes:
>> It's only "wrong" (i.e. murder) if the object of the abortion is a living
>> independent human being, and we know that the objects of abortion, the
>> fetuses, cannot sustain themselves outside of the environment of the womb,
>> thus they cannot be "murdered"
>
>Are you also suggesting that it is not wrong to kill newly-born babies, since
>they are not capable of feeding themselves?  For that matter, if a human must
>be "independent" in order to have the right to live, why is it wrong to kill
>anyone on this planet?  

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. 

>> The real center of the abortion controversy is "Are the fetuses living
>> things, the termination of which would be 'murder'?"  Having lost that
>> central issue, . . .
>
>A fetus is a living thing.  It's need to be provided with warmth, nutrients,
>oxygen, etc. does not make it any less so.  Do you think that you are 'dead'
>merely because you depend upon oxygen that is produced by plant life?
>
>A human fetus has human chromosomes that are different from the ones which
>belong to its parents.  It is not a 'tissue outgrowth' or an 'organ' of the
>woman's body, but a separate individual.

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.

Also, I don't think anybody can argue the Earth's (God's?) right to blow
us off it's face if it doesn't like us living here.

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?

Then you list your ideas of pro-choice arguments:
> (a) If I don't want the baby, it must be "trespassing", and
                          ^^^^  fetus! you #@%$^&@$ muckraker!

> therefore it's OK to kill it (analogue to property rights) 
> (b) It may be a living human being (human = Homo sapiens), but
> it isn't HUMAN (HUMAN = Homo sapiens +certain features that 
> vary with the person posting the argument), and thus it isn't 
> entitled to HUMAN rights, and thus it's OK to kill it.
> 
>I don't think that either argument is convincing; other people think the 
>opposite.  But most of the posts from both sides do implicitly acknowledge 
>the fact that the fetus is a living organism which is different from (even 
>if dependent upon) its parents.
> -- Thomas Newton

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
is 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.

-- 
Charles Forsythe
CSDF@MIT-VAX
"The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack.
    No one knows about it."
        -Rev. Wang Zeep