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