Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!mit-eddie!nessus From: nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: Message-ID: <2352@mit-eddie.UUCP> Date: Wed, 11-Jul-84 15:23:28 EDT Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.2352 Posted: Wed Jul 11 15:23:28 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 13-Jul-84 03:31:21 EDT References: <898@psuvm.UUCP> Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA Lines: 113 From Vince Marchionni: > Murder is a crime commited by man against man. A man may kill a > dolphin at ANY stage of the dolphins life and it is NOT murder. > A dolphin may kill a man at any stage of the man's life and the > dolphin has not murdered. Murder isn't a crime by man against man. It is a crime by an entity with free will against an entity with free will. If dolphins are not intelligent, then they can neither murder nor be murdered. On the other hand, if they are intelligent then they can both murder and be murdered. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Vulcans exist. Maybe they do, but they probably don't. But they are relevent because they could possibly exist. There is probably intelligent life different from our species somewhere is the universe. Now what if a human were to kill a Vulcan -- let's say Spock? Wouldn't this be murder? Of course it would! What if Spock were to cold bloodedly kill Captain Kirk? Wouldn't this be murder? Of course it would! But Spock isn't a man. > 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. What makes you SO sure that Dolphins are a lower life form??? > The next problem is equating a fetus of man with a full grown > dolphin. The comparison is silly. We must consider the fetus > as a stage of development of the species of mankind. It must > NOT be compared against another species no matter at what stage. What kind of bigotry is this? Vulcans aren't worth as much as real people? Why make the distinction at the species boundry? Why not the sub-species boundry? Blacks, Orientals, Indians, Arabs -- none of them have a right to life -- they're not in our subspecies! While we're at it neither do fags, godless atheists, hippies, the poor, nor women! > The question of the personhood, humanity or inteligence of the > fetus must be discussed within the fact that it is a stage of > human development. Well so is the amoeba. In a sense an amoeba never dies of old age, because it reproduces buy doubling itself. And an amoeba might eventually evolve into a human (it happened at least once). Thus by killing an amoeba you are killing a cell that is a stage in the development of the species of mankind. By your line of reasoning, killing an amoeba is murder! > One MUST be a fetus first!!! Well in the year 2455, Fron Mayarg will invent the matter duplicator and and we will have people who will have never been fetuses. I suppose that these people won't really be people to you? Are you readying the shotgun? > When an abortion is done the fetus is killed. Even if the fetus > is only a few cells, those cells are alive. They constitute a > higher organism than just a colection of cells. The organism > will grow and eventually be viable. So what? Why does that make it murder? The same argument can be used about cats. > The problem then of abortion is an ethical, philosophical, > religious and a social problem. These areas will affect the > legal answer to the problem. Well, you've gotten one thing right. > The fetus is a human since it is a necessary stage of human > development. Why does being a necessary stage of human development make something human? Bauxite ore is a necessay stage in the development of an aluminum baseball bat, but that doesn't mean that bauxite ore is the same thing as an aluminum baseball bat. > The fetus is alive. So are carrots. Please stop throwing in totally irrelevant things. > The fetus has a right to come to term since it is alive. Here you go again. > The rights of the fetus have priority over the rights of the > parents. The rights of people don't have priority over the rights of people! Why should the rights of a fetus have priority over the rights of the parents even if the fetus is a person? > The fetus needs protection since it is defensless(which is why > it is within the mother's body in the first place). To stay alive it does. No one is going to deny that an abortion kills the fetus. > Both parents have obligations to the fetus and have rights to > the fetus. No one has an obligation to the fetus until it reaches a certain stage of development and then only the mother has the rights to it or the responsibilities for it. (I can make unsupported statements too.) -- -Doug Alan mit-eddie!nessus Nessus@MIT-MC "What does 'I' mean"?