Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site wucs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!wucs!esk
From: esk@wucs.UUCP (Eric Kaylor )
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: another semi-comprehensive reply
Message-ID: <496@wucs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 19-Nov-84 16:39:21 EST
Article-I.D.: wucs.496
Posted: Mon Nov 19 16:39:21 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 21-Nov-84 00:10:53 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: Washington U. in St. Louis, CS Dept.
Lines: 64

From: brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson)
> If I can not "see" a "definite" transition point between childhood and 
> adulthood, does that mean that every person is an adult?

A good point, but the real question is not about transition points (or
transition regions -- no reason has yet been given to suppose that the 
change must occur all at once) but about *morally relevant* transitions.
The real question is "what kinds of creatures ought we to treat in what
ways, including protecting them by law or not; and why?"

> You can see no definite transition point.  Have you heard of "birth"?
> It is a transition, and it is plainly definite.  

There are plenty of other transition points (in fact an infinite number).
Are you suggesting that birth should be taken as the IMPORTANT transition
point?  WHY?????????

> If you think that birth shouldn't be used as a decision-point of where 
> a developing homo-sapiens is worth saving, then you MUST tell us what you
> think is the difference between one worth saving, and one ok to prevent.

Dead right!  AND, if you think it SHOULD be used as this "decision-point",
YOU (that means YOU!) ALSO must tell us what you think is the difference
that makes one worth saving or not, and why.  Go ahead Brian (or anyone!). 
I'm waiting.

From: hawk@oliven.UUCP (Rick)
> ... I find the fetus to be a human being of its own, with all
> rights pertaining thereto.  Not trying to protect it would be negligence
> and hypocrasy on my part, just as not speaking out against slavery, rape,
> murder, or child abuse would be.

The crucial words here are "with all rights pertaining thereto".  If you
think this follows from the statement "it's a human being", then (if you
want to argue for your view, as opposed to merely defending its consistency)
you must BOTH spell out your criterion of humanity AND show why anything
that satisfies this criterion necessarily has these rights.  Of course, it
would be simpler just to spell out and argue for a criterion for something's
having rights and then show that fetuses fit this criterion ...

I agree 100% with your second sentence here.  I wish "pro-choicers" could get
that through their thick heads.  It would save them a lot of wasted breath.

From: cdshaw@watmath.UUCP (Chris Shaw)
> Laws against things like murder, however, are **NOT LAWS ABOUT MORAL 
> ISSUES**.

Two words:  Bull.  Shit.  

From: jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen)
> Fetuses can be aborted alive.  The reason they die, is that we have not 
> yet developed the technology to artificially maintain them.  If the pro-
> life groups were directing their energies towards the development of an 
> artificial womb rather than trying to impose their morality on others, I 
> don't think we would be arguing.

I think this is the best solution, but as those who know more biology than
I do can assure you, this technology is not as easy as you make it sound.  
The question remains what to do in the (probably lengthy) meantime.

				--The THIRD side,
				Paul V. Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047
Please send any mail directly to this address, not the sender's.  Thanks.