Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-ngp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!mordor!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm
From: kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Dividing Lines
Message-ID: <1332@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 22-Feb-85 00:02:05 EST
Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.1332
Posted: Fri Feb 22 00:02:05 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 18-Feb-85 05:36:33 EST
References: <258@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: U.Texas Computation Center, Austin, Texas
Lines: 53

[]

dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) writes:
>If the fetus is a human being, the mother has no right to terminate
>the pregnancy simply to remove a social inconvenience or to preserve
>a career, which is what abortion on demand allows.

Why does the fetus have the right to extract support from its
unwilling mother?  (What does convenience have to do with it?)

>The right to live far surpasses any and all other human rights and
>should not be violated.

I don't buy the idea of the "right to live", but only of the right
to be left alone.  The "right to live" includes the presumption that
the means to live will be provided, somehow.  How?  Blank out!

> So the question is still; When does a fetus
>become a human being?

What exactly is a "human being"?  The least unreasonable definition
of "human" I've heard is genetic -- a human being is an entity which
posesses a full set of Homo Sapiens genes.  But this definition has
a major problem: the \polar body/, an "extra" full set of H. Sapiens
genes which forms during fertilization.  The polar body usually does
not develop into a separate embryo (surprise! :~>).  But the question
arises: do polar bodies have the "right to life"?  (Knowledgeable
persons please correct me if I've misremembered the above...) 
BTW, If someone has a better definition of "human", please post it.

>Even in the case of rape and incest, is it right to destroy a human life?

Is it *ever* right to enslave anyone, even to save another person?

>If the mothers life is endanger, the cases should be evaluated individually
>where there are two human lives concerned. The solution should be one
>that takes both lives into consideration, not one over another.

In an unwanted pregnancy, someone is going to lose.  The mother owns
her body and did not invite the fetus to use it, so the fetus loses.

>ALL of this hinges of course on whether or not a fetus IS a human life!

Which is a *major* problem -- incompatible (and even contradictory)
definitions of "human life" can be constructed...

--
The above viewpoints are mine.  They are unrelated to
those of anyone else, including my cats and my employer.

Ken Montgomery  "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs"
...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm  [Usenet, when working]
kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA  [for Arpanauts only]