Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxt.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!js2j
From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: why is it?
Message-ID: <1236@mhuxt.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 4-Nov-85 13:25:27 EST
Article-I.D.: mhuxt.1236
Posted: Mon Nov  4 13:25:27 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 5-Nov-85 23:13:23 EST
References: <957@gitpyr.UUCP> <966@gitpyr.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 50

> >Perhaps you can explain to me why you view the death of a mindless mass of
> >cells as being of some moral consequence? This seems to me to be the very
> >root of the controversy, and I must admit to having no empathy at all with
> >your pssition....
> 
> 	I think this has been covered quite thoroughly on the net from 
> various points; I agree with you as to this being the root of the controversy.
> Myke, if you have been following the discussion it is quite clear that 
> pro-lifers do not regard a "foetus" or however you wish to term the unborn
> as a mindless mass of cells. 

      It is clear that at some time in the development of a human being,
the developing human develops a mind.  This does not happen immediately
at conception, and quite arguably, not during the first trimester.  During
that time, the foetus can be accurately described as a mindless mass of cells.
I have yet to see a non-religiously-based reason *why* a foetus at this
stage of development deserves protection under the law.  (and would be
interested in hearing *why* various pro-lifers do)

> A severed finger is certainly a mindless mass
> of cells; however you treat it, incubate or life support or anything it will
> never be more than a finger; however, no reasonable person can say that this
> holds true of a foetus clear to the point where "its" head emerges and it
> apparently magically becomes a "him" or "her".  Can you see the difference?

     Of course, but I'm interested in why pro-lifers are interested in 
protecting it *before* it has developed a mind, not in the second and 
third trimesters.  
     I'm aware of the argument that goes: 'Well, since we don't *know* when
the foetus develops a mind, we'd better give it the benefit of the doubt
as early as reasonably possible.'  I agree with this argument, and this
is why I support a pro-choice stance only until the end of the first
trimester.  (or possibly the first four months.  It's so hard to draw
a line.)
     I'm also aware that some pro-lifers don't care when the foetus develops
a mind, but as far as I've been able to tell, these people are always
religiously motivated.  

> If I believe the unborn, at any stage of being, to be in fact a living child,
> then it is as much my responsibility to try to stop its "termination" as if
> I saw a child standing in front of a speeding car, don't you agree?  

     Yes.

> Kevin Smith
> ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!kss
-- 
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
    "What would Captain Kirk say?"