Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sdccs6.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdccs6!ix192
From: ix192@sdccs6.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Re: Who has the right over our bodies?
Message-ID: <1296@sdccs6.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 26-Mar-84 14:58:49 EST
Article-I.D.: sdccs6.1296
Posted: Mon Mar 26 14:58:49 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Mar-84 01:25:38 EST
References: <581@ihuxn.UUCP>, <2050@cbscc.UUCP>, <7330@watmath.UUCP>, <3673@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: Hacker's Haven, U.C. San Diego
Lines: 45

[]

From: ...utzoo!laura (Laura Creighton)

> Sophie,
> your argument about the state and bone marrow is specious.

That's true.  I'd consider it a technicality, and moral issues like this one
should not be won on technicalities.

> *If* the
> fetus is a human being, then an abortion is killing a human being.
> And te state already prevents you from killing me, why should 
> these rights not be granted to a humn being simply because it has
> not been born yet?

Because the fetus has not been born yet, it hasn't gotten the full taste of
life.  A taste it wouldn't miss, nor worry about, nor suffer for.  Because
it hasn't been born yet, the fetus is still existing on the sole compliance
of the mother.  True, a machine COULD take her place, but that's not so 
important because in a few years we should be able to have a mechanical womb.
You, Laura, have lived already.  You mean something to this world.  If Sophie
killed you, she'd be taking something away from this world.  But if someone
killed a fetus, they'd be taking away a POTENTIAL, not something that 
already means a lot.  Well, other than it was a human being.

> The state doesn't demand that we save others by
> giving them marrow transplants, but then an abortion is not just a
> failure to provide something -- it is an action, not an
> absence of one.

Ah, yes, but we are also talking future tense here.  The abortion or lack of
one is not just an isolated action.  It has consequences on the future.  And
what the abortion-requesting woman wants to not-provide is all the money, time,
space, and career chances she'll have to give up to raise the fetus.  To not
provide those things, she needs an abortion.  If you ban the abortion, you 
are taking away someone's choice of not providing an action.  A real live,
LIVED person will die if we don't provide bone marrow, yet we don't have to.
Why should those same rules force us to provide parts of our lives to something
that hasen't even lived yet?

				   Kenn the Kenf
				...!sdcsvax!kenn
				...!sdcsvax!sdccs6!ix192
				...!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!kenn