Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site gitpyr.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gatech!gitpyr!kss From: kss@gitpyr.UUCP (Kevin Smith) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: why is it? Message-ID: <966@gitpyr.UUCP> Date: Fri, 1-Nov-85 10:53:39 EST Article-I.D.: gitpyr.966 Posted: Fri Nov 1 10:53:39 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 3-Nov-85 04:55:22 EST References: <957@gitpyr.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology Lines: 28 Summary: Why it is. Myke, >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. 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? 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? This is certainly of moral consequence. Kevin Smith -- Kevin Smith Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!kss