Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site shark.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!shark!brianp
From: brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re:  (abortion and speciocentricity)
Message-ID: <878@shark.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Jul-84 16:57:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: shark.878
Posted: Tue Jul 10 16:57:23 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Jul-84 07:17:09 EDT
References: <898@psuvm.UUCP>
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 92

~  Path: shark!orca!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!psuvax1!psuvm%v6m
~  Posted: Thu Jun 21 11:43:03 1984
~  Date-Received: Tue, 10-Jul-84 04:37:49 PDT
This is aTROcious!  (note the dates)

~  The problem here is equating a lower life form (carrots, dolphins, etc)
~  with man.  We have been taught, that man is the highest form of life on earth
~  and all other forms are subordinate and are to be used by him.
Being taught so doesn't make it so.  I infer that you believe in a creator,
and 'god given' purpose for everything.

~  We may be guilty of poor stewardship(aka management) when 
~  we endanger a species
~  but the wrong is in the acts which endanger the entire specie NOT the killing
~  of the membership PER SE.
Right on.  Homo Sapiens is a specie, is it not?  (implying that nuclear war 
is a much greater naughty than murder, even counting only human death)

~  Murder is a crime commited by man against man.  
By definition OF man,  who hasn't had any +obvious+ examples of non-human
intelligent species.  And is just now becoming able (as a society) to 
believe in the possibility of 'others'.

~  I won't consider the question of whether a dolphin can murder another dolphin
~  because I don't think murder is capable in lower forms of life.
(Challenge: PROVE dolphins are ``lower'' (which I take to mean 
``not intelligent'').  Giving your definition of "lower" and "intelligent" 
is, of course, required)

~  It must NOT be compared against another species no
~  matter at what stage.
And why not?!?!?

~  They constitute a higher organism than just a colection of cells.  
Does it?  If you look at a collection of assorted embryos, how can
you tell which is which, let alone how `high' each one is?

~  The organism will grow and eventually be viable.
Maybe 30% chance, by nature.

~  Here is my simple minded position:
~  The fetus is a human since it is a necessary stage of human development.
~  The fetus is alive.
Agreed.

~  The fetus has a right to come to term since it is alive.
What leads you to conclude that?  Mosquito larvae don't have that right.
(administered by man the holy, in his supreme wisdom.  (personally, I
don't like mosquitos either. :-))
The key seems to be the fact that man is the `ruling class' of nature;
he considers himself special.  This specialness is usually equated with 
intelligence.  Other species are also intelligent.  Most seem to be less so.  
It may be purely a matter of degree.  (I know a gorilla who speaks 
with a vocabulary of several hundred words. (ameslan signs)  She makes 
up words, asks questions, is learning colours and numbers, and knows
some teensy bit about right and wrong)   Anyway, the most obvious
difference between man and other species (here on earth) is that
man uses THINGS much more than others.  A man without his possessions
is not NATURAL.  (A man with a blender is more `natural' than one
without anything.  Such is the `nature' of man)
This is all leading to show that man sees himself as completely 
isolated and different from animals, and that each and every one
of his species is (therefore?) worthwhile.  Or maybe it is just
a result of natural speciocentricity to consider each member of ones
own species as valuable.  (except when fighting for survival, or
mating rights)  Does the fact that every member of society is
(or is considered to be) valuable imply that every  +potential+ 
member is valuable?  Does it imply that we should therefore have
as many members as possible, whatever the cost?  The only "sacred"
aspect of fertilization is that it is a dividing line.  One possibility
out of many has been taken, by chance.  A zillion sperm and ova,
not even "possible" humans when taken alone, have now produced
one particular chance at a human.  (or whatever).

~  The rights of the fetus have priority over the rights of the parents.
So what if you were female, and got raped?  (or elsehow unintentionally
pregnant.  Defective birth control device, maybe) And what if you had 
plans for your life, other than being a babymaker?  (let's say you were 
the president...)  Are you going to give up your life, or are you going 
to stick the baby up in the attic, and dig it out and raise it when the 
important and meaningful things of that phase of your life are over with?

~  Both parents have obligations to the fetus and have rights to the fetus.
People shouldn't go around making embryos without a care, but then, they
don't have a `baby disable' switch in the control panel on their backs.
The devices of men aren't 139% perfect, you know.
Rights to the fetus?  Not total rights.  Man takes beaten children from
cruel men.  A fetus grows up into an independent human.

~  Vince Marchionni
Brian Peterson.
{ihnp4, ucbvax, } !tektronix!shark!brianp