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