Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: An abortion story
Message-ID: <4181@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 26-Nov-84 12:55:14 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.4181
Posted: Mon Nov 26 12:55:14 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 27-Nov-84 04:22:25 EST
References: <44@tove.UUCP>, <1158@shark.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <SCCS>, Columbus
Lines: 155


}>[Liz Allen]
}>
}>There are a few things in this narrative that I want you to notice
}>-- partly because people are in the habit of posting things
}>contradicting these things...
}>
}>1.  The child is well formed -- not at all a "blob" or just tissue.
}>And, at ten weeks, this is not an "older" abortion; some abortions
}>are performed earlier, but most are performed at 10 weeks or later.
}
}[Ken Montgomery]
}The degree of development of the child is irrelevant.  Why does an
}unborn child (or any child) have the right to have its life supported
}by its mother?  Why does it even have the right to remain inside her
}body against her will?  By what principle?  Why is this principle valid?

Perhaps you should explain why the principle is invalid.  Our court system
recognizes a child's right to life that requires *someone* to support it.
This requires at least a minimum amount of responsiblity on the part of
the parents.  A mother can't just turn her 2 year old out and say "Go
support yourself".  So either she supports the child, someone adopts him,
or we support him with taxes.  But no one makes the child support himself
because he can't.

If you say the degree of development is irrelevant, are you saying that
there is no legal rights distinction between a 10 week old fetus and
a 2 year old child?  (You did say "any child").  If there is no difference,
where and when do you get your rights as an adult?

}>2.  The child is animated -- he doesn't just sleep unaware of
}>anything but seems quite active.
}
}So what?

So he is a lot more similar to you and I than we have been led to believe.

}>3.  The child is aware of the attack -- he moves away from the
}>instrument and as far away as possible.
}
}Or was he merely pushed away by it?

Why don't you see for yourself?  I recently read Nathanson's own
comments about the film.  It wasn't just pushed.  It intentionally
moved away.  But you'd say this makes no difference, right?  But apparently
you would rather believe there is a difference?  Why?

Nathanson tells of the reactions of two other people who were involved
in making the film.  The abortionist (a friend of Nathanson's) was absolutely
mortified after seeing it on the monitor.  He no longer does abortions.
The woman whom Nathanson needed to interpret the sonogram was also deeply
disturbed.  She could hardly go through with the production of the film.
Certainly if there was any other way to rationalize the child's moving away
from an attack (as Ken is doing here), the abortionist would have done so.

}>4.  The child reacts to pain and seems aware of his death -- the
}>silent scream...
}
}Cats also react to pain.  However, the evidence given in no way shows
}that the child "seems aware of his death".  How can you tell what is
}going on in the child's brain, such of it as there is at 10 weeks?

But we're not talking about cats, are we?  How does anyone know what's
going on in any human's brain when you are trying to kill them.  Is it
acceptable to kill a mentally retarded individual?  How about you or
I when we are asleep?  If you are going to maintain that the degree
of awareness of death (i.e. at the point of death) is a criteria for
killing a human, what logical difference is there between these cases?

There certainly is as much evidence that this 10 week old fetus is as
aware of its death as my 10 month old daugher would be.  Killing one
is abortion, the other, murder.  What's the difference?

It would be at least a step in the right direction if the fetus had
at least as much protection as the neighborhood cat.

}>I didn't post this to be gross or emotional -- even though this
}>narrative is both these things.  I posted it because if there was
}>a window to the womb, abortion would be as unthinkable as murder.
}
}Why would abortion necessarily be unthinkable?  I don't see any
}causal link here.

Then why is the killing of humans outside the womb "unthinkable"?

}>I think it says a lot (negative) about our society that at a time
}>in which we know so much more about fetal development than ever
}>before, we still don't consider abortion unequivocally wrong...
}
}Why does society even have a role in the decision?

Maybe because the killing of humans isn't normally regarded as
permissable on an individual basis?  Especially if the killing
is without sufficient reason (e.g. self defense).  I don't think
we can personify "society" so far as to say that it makes decisions,
but it can be generally ignorant of facts.  I think that the answer
to Liz' statement here is that the facts concerning fetal development
and their implications for the abortion issue are not common knowledge.
Nathanson's film is very recent and is the first of its kind to be
made generally available.  Maybe as more people see it, things will
begin to change.

}Tell me, Ms. Allen, are you willing to carry any and all children
}that you might conceive?  Either way, why do you think you have
}the right to force other women to carry unwanted children?

Why would Liz have to carry them?  I don't see the causual link here.

}[Brian Peterson]
}Liz Allen quotes a soundtrack from a video of an abortion.
}The abortion is icky-poo.  Whether it is icky-poo or not
}is not the key issue, and has no relevance to whether
}abortion should be allowed or not.  It is allowable to
}vomit, kill prey, and to go potty.  All icky.
}Yet, nobody tries to ban them.

Do you think "icky-poo" is the the reason people are against abortion?
Should we assume that people are only against killing born humans
because it's "icky-poo" and argue that we should be legally able
to kill them too?

}Liz Allen numbers 4 characteristics of that
}10 week old fetus.  A random lizard has them, too.
}The difference between killing a 10 week old embryo
}and the random lizard is that one of them is of
}the same species as us.  It is hard-wired in
}to us to favour cute little pink things which
}resemble humans.  This is the level of emotion,
}of animal feelings, not reason.  It is for ensuring
}survival of the species.  I think we are now at the
}point where quality is more important than quantity,
}however.  (4.5 billion, or was it 4.7?)

Who's going to set the quality standards?  I think it's
ridiculous to infer that the practice of abortion on demand
represents a quality judgement of the fetus.  But I think
Brian is talking more about the "quality" of life of those
allowing the abortions.  And "quality" is a blank check
where abortion on demand is concerned.  We can put anything
we like there, or nothing at all, and it is enough justification
for killing the fetus.  Your use of the term "quality" is
meaningless, Brian.

Perhaps you could also explain why laws agianst killing you
and I are more at the level of reason than emotion (and maybe
why things at the level of emotion are irrelevant).  If we no
longer need to insure species survival, why not be random in
our killing instead of singling out that class of humans that
are still in the womb?  For once I'd like to see you explain
these things without invoking the "rational" of that non-culpable,
non-person, called "society".
-- 
The unaborted,

Paul Dubuc	cbscc!pmd