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?"