Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site gitpyr.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!emory!gt-stratus!gitpyr!tynor
From: tynor@gitpyr.UUCP (Steve Tynor)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Who's Life Anyway?
Message-ID: <504@gitpyr.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 28-Jun-85 22:47:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: gitpyr.504
Posted: Fri Jun 28 22:47:17 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Aug-85 14:54:55 EDT
References: <556@bgsuvax.UUCP> <283@vaxwaller.UUCP> <710@ihlpg.UUCP> <983@homxa.UUCP>
Reply-To: tynor@gitpyr.UUCP (Steve Tynor)
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 54
Summary: 

In article <983@homxa.UUCP> wine@homxa.UUCP (J.GORDON) writes:

>.....  As has been mentioned before, not everyone considers
>carrying a fetus to term and then paying $200,000+ to raise it and send
>it to school,not to mention putting in the time involved in raising it,
>a responsibility.

...and there are some who feel that it is not there responsibility to
raise their (living) child (ie. those who fail to pay child support).

I guess it all comes down to a definition of when life begins.  We
all (I 'spose I shouldn't make such sweeping claims, but what the
heck) agree that a 1 month old child has a right to live and that 
its parents or legal guardians have a responsibility to raise it.
They don't have the right to kill it off if it becomes inconvienient 
(even burdensome).	

It seems to me that since the fetus of 1 minute and the child of one
month differ only in the amount of time since conception.  They
share the same genetic information, and are thus the same person. 
If we arbitrarily claim that life magically starts at 3 months, what
prevents us from claiming that life 'ends' at 150 years? Clearly
there has never been anyone who has lived to 150 years, just as
those who support abortion will point out that there has never been
a a pre-3 month fetus that could survive outside its mother's womb.

But what if we make strides in medicine and are able to keep people
alive past 150 years?  Do these people have rights?  After all
there's a law that says life ends at 150 years.  How can you have
rights if you're not alive?  Similarly, what if the medical sciences
advance to the point (and I'm sure it won't be long) where a pre-3month
fetus can be kept alive and brought to term?  Do we still have the
right to kill it, just because a law says we do?  (ah, you say, but
if that's the case then the mother wouldn't have to bring it to
term, she could off load to the artificial womb.  I ask you, how
different is this from adoption? )

The point is, it's dangerous to define such things as the beginning
and end of life on the state of medical technology.  Technology
changes, but should ethics have to change with it?

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Semper ubi sub puri ubi.
                     
    Steve Tynor
    Georgia Instutute of Technology

 ...{akgua, allegra, amd, harpo, hplabs,
     ihnp4, masscomp, ut-ngp, rlgvax, sb1,
     uf-cgrl, unmvax, ut-sally}  !gatech!gitpyr!tynor
-- 
Steve Tynor
Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,masscomp,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!tynor