Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ccice6.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccice5!ccice6!daf
From: daf@ccice6.UUCP (David Fader)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Re: Abortion and Capital Punishment
Message-ID: <249@ccice6.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 21-Nov-84 13:17:06 EST
Article-I.D.: ccice6.249
Posted: Wed Nov 21 13:17:06 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 23-Nov-84 07:44:47 EST
References: <1782@burdvax.UUCP> <779@ariel.UUCP> <359@klipper.UUCP> <315@qantel.UUCP> <2794@ucbcad.UUCP>
Organization: CCI Central Engineering, Rochester, NY
Lines: 53

> > >   Human fetuses are no humans, and may be aborted. Since birth does
> > >   not miraculously brew "humans", the only logical limit is when
> > >   it becomes clear that a child is reasonable. So I think parents
> > >   should have the right to "kill" their children till something
> > >   like the age of 12. In fact in Japan this is already an accepted
> > >   point of view. Why would it suddenly be murder t " kill" a baby
> > >   that two days ago still was a "fetus" and so possible subject to
> > >   abortion? The natural limit would be this: At the moment a child
> > >   would be able to live after being rejected by its parents, it
> > >   could. Being removed from a womb is such a form of rejection.
> > >   (In fact, this is also a [Ll]ibertarian idea: nobody has the duty
> > >   to care for someone else, and children are held responsible for
> > >   themselves)
> >
> > Is this supposed to be a sick joke or what?  Either this is an example of how
> > ridiculous abortion is or this man wishes to be flamed to death.

    Or else he thought before he began typing, you should try it.

> > I have never heard such a evil thing on this network before.  I can't believe
> > people really think like this.  I hope no one else out there has this demented
> > view of children, whether you are pro-abortion or not.  Does this man propose
> > that we set ourselves up higher than any other authority and kill children 
> > because they can't take care of themselves?  I just can't believe anyone could
> > say such a thing!

No one said to kill children because they can't take care of themselves.
The statement was that it should be acceptable for a person to kill a child
if that child depends on that person in order not to die. If you can not
see the difference then should not try to respond.

> Of course he's not serious. What I don't see is how somebody could possibly
> miss the ironic intent of the article...
> 
>       Wayne

I'm not convinced the article was intended to be irony. I think the
article is an attempt to start a discussion on definitions.

There seems to be no agreement on when a fetus becomes a human. Since
this point can not be determined then it is not sensible to use it
in a definition.

Perhaps it is easier to define the point at which a human is able to
reason and survive on its own. If this point can be determined then
it could be used for a clear definition of where a child becomes a
person with his own rights.

These points do not address right or wrong. They are intended to
be thought provoking. Unfortunately, thought is not a requiremnt
when discussing abortion.

				THINKING