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!mgnetp!ihnp4!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!shark!brianp From: brianp@shark.UUCP Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: uncomfortable facts Message-ID: <895@shark.UUCP> Date: Tue, 17-Jul-84 13:54:15 EDT Article-I.D.: shark.895 Posted: Tue Jul 17 13:54:15 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 19-Jul-84 04:25:59 EDT References: <898@psuvm.UUCP>, <2352@mit-eddie.UUCP>, <8938@gatech.UUCP> Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR Lines: 52 From: owens@gatech.UUCP (Gerald R. Owens) Subject: uncomfortable facts Lines: 74 1. The problem with a fetus is not what it is, but what it will be. Is mere "potential" a legitimate basis for deciding the rights of the unborn? If I take a bit of someone's liver, doctors can keep it alive, and in not much time, will be able to bring its dna to its "full potential". (cloning) 2. Fetuses don't 'happen'. They are 'caused'. If you assume people have sex, then fetuses "happen." Not everyone knows all the facts. That's why we have sex education. What about all the "myths", like "you can't get pregnant the first time" that young people believe? Among responsible people, fetuses are "caused". I am, of course, looking at it from the "intent" point of view, rather than the "biological act" point of view. 3. Many abortion decisions are economic or social in nature. there are economic problems with having a baby at the wrong time, something which NOBODY disputes. Those social problems: If we are civilized sapient beings, don't we want to give our members decent lives and opportunities? An unwanted, unloved child is not the goal of anyone, I don't think. (unless there are some real fanatical "natural selection" types out there. I merely wish to point out that the argument "Abortion is OK because the fetus isn't a XXX" is different from "Abortion is OK because it will help prevent the deterioration of a person's economic status", and one could just as well use the second argument to justify ANYTHING. No, you can't. You could use it for anything if it was "xyz would help IMPROVE a person's economic status." "Preventing deterioration" implies (at least to me) defending against something bad which happens TO you. However, if one has read recent articles in this newsgroup, it is obvious that in order to defend abortion, the uniqueness and value of a human being is being degraded. The problem is: "what is a human being?" We know that a fetus is a stage in the life of a Homo Sapiens animal, but are we going to decide that everyone with homosapiens dna is a "human being" (a "person"). [a point to ponder: "Who" is that fetus being aborted. That might help bring out good questions on what we mean by "person"] "murder" isn't bad, just inconvenient in some cases. The human race isn't special, and the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Overpopulation, survival of the fitest, weeding out rejects, etc... If we treat the population of homo sapiens like any other species, this all makes sense. If we treat it as a collection of sapient beings, this stance is invalid, and the question about abortion no longer is quite as easy. Brian Peterson tektronix!shark!brianp