Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!matt
From: matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt )
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: why is it?
Message-ID: <2673@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 31-Oct-85 16:05:43 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.2673
Posted: Thu Oct 31 16:05:43 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 3-Nov-85 10:37:05 EST
References: <957@gitpyr.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 68

MYKE REYNOLDS writes:

> Mr. Rosenblatt, you appear to be about the most level headed hard core
> pro-lifer I've ever encountered (I will put aside for a moment my view
> of this as an inherent contradiction). Most of your articles that I have
> read in the last 3-4 months have been on very peripheral and dilute subjects.
> Perhaps you can explain to me why you view the death of a mindless mass of
> cells as being of some moral consequence?

First, let's look at the term "mass of cells."  Every living thing but the
very simplest is a "mass of cells."  So, to pass over the killing of 
something just because it is a "mass of cells" would excuse the killing
of any living creature.

Well, then, let's add "mindless," as Myke Reynolds does.  Is there any
moral consequence to killing a generalized "mindless mass of cells"?
We kill and eat plants and animals, and I know of no moral code practiced
by a continuously existing society that forbids the killing of both plants
and animals in order to eat them.  Still, there are limits.  Noah was told
not to eat a limb torn from a living animal.  

It's this particular mindless mass of cells, the embryo or fetus, whose
killing is of moral consequence.  Myke Reynolds asks why, having read
my (and presumably other writers') articles over the past few months.
I've written that I believe the fetus is a human being, and that even
if we are uncertain whether it is or not, we must give it the benefit
of the doubt (--argument taken from Ronald Reagan's book, "Abortion and
the Conscience of the Nation").  I've agreed with those who write that
development of the human, from fertilized egg through embryo through
fetus through newborn through infancy through childhood to adulthood,
is a continuous process, with no clearcut dividing point.  I've agreed
with those who say that a woman's carrying a pregnancy to term is a
natural process, normally resulting in a baby.

I wrote on Monday, August 26 that "I refuse to treat a class of beings
that once included myself as we treat germs or bugs or worms."  Who am
I, who is anyone on this net, to say that such a being deserves death?
Maybe the woman would be "better off" in some sense by the death
of the fetus (and during most of pregnancy, separating the fetus
from its mother means certain death for it).  There are many
adult people in this world of whom it could be said that the world
would be better off by their deaths.  Does that mean they deserve death?
Aren't there many people in the world who die who deserve life?
And can we give it back to them?  Then let us not be so quick to say
who deserves death (argument from The Lord of the Rings).  

I've quoted the Reverend Jesse Jackson, writing in 1977 for a pro-life
publication, to the effect that he might not have existed had abortion
been legal at the time of his birth.  

I believe that human life is good.  I've disagreed with those who say
that we are the most dangerous threat to the existence of life on Earth.  

If it is not killed or left to die uncared-for, a newborn baby will
become like me.  It is already one of us.  If it is not killed, the
"mindless mass of cells" that is a blastula or embryo will become like
me.  It, too, is already one of us.  

I've agreed with those who talk of the legal rights of the unborn.
The law now gives the pregnant woman the privilege of doing to her
fetus that which, if done by a third party unauthorized by her,
would be an injury ("injury" as a legal term) -- both a civil tort and 
a crime.  If it's of moral consequence when a third party's negligent
or intentional act causes miscarriage or fetal injury ("injury" as a
medical term), then how can it be of no moral consequence just because
the pregnant woman does or authorizes such an act?

					-- Matt Rosenblatt