Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxlm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!edsel!bentley!hoxna!houxm!mhuxj!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!whuxlm!mag
From: mag@whuxlm.UUCP (Gray Michael A)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Animals and people, which feels what.
Message-ID: <693@whuxlm.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 27-Feb-85 09:16:10 EST
Article-I.D.: whuxlm.693
Posted: Wed Feb 27 09:16:10 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Mar-85 06:26:18 EST
References: <1115@hcrvx1.UUCP> <166@spp1.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany
Lines: 62

> 
> > From what I can tell about pre-babies, they don't see time as a "human"
> > would.  
> 
> Isn't this the basic premise upon which all types of rasiscm is found. The
> thought that others do not "measure up" to what is norm. 

No.  The basic premise of racism is that certain human beings may properly be
treated differently because of their race.  The original author made no
mention of race, and probably means his/her observation to apply to babies
(or "pre-babies") of all races, including his/her own.

This is a cheap debating tactic.  Take something you don't like, such as
abortion,  ask if it isn't the same as something most people dislike,
such as racism, and you have perpetrated a nice, cheap ad-hominem attack
under the guise of righteousness.

>                                                          You correctly
> quoted the word human since biologically it is one as we are.
> 
The author obviously quoted the word "human" in order to indicate that,
in his/her usage, it was meant to exclude pre-babies.  

> > They have no notions about it other than the here and now.  All
> > I know is that some time after birth, they develop a sense of time, and
> > an understanding of their future.  Birth is the latest point where we can
> > recognize that that sense is lacking.  So, I have no trouble with allowing
> > abortions of pre-babies.
> 
> Do you believe that, before a child utters a word, he has no concept of
> words? Do you think that a neon sign lights up upon each stage of
> development? Do you think there is any possiblity that a child may have
> developed a sense of time and an understanding of future in a way that no
> words could express? And if there were words, what with his immature vocal
> capabilities and irregular body movements, would his inability to
> express the concept seal his doom.
> 
The original author is talking about "pre-babies" -- i.e. fetuses.  You
give an answer that refers to children.  Your arguments fail to address
his/her assertions.
> 
> >                               Tracy Tims    ihnp4!utzoo!hcr!hcrvx1!tracy
> 
> You use phrases such as "From what I can tell..." and "All I know is..."
> implying views from your limited perception. Easy, we all have limited
> perceptions. That's why conscientious hunters don't shoot at moving bushes.
> You also said ".. sometime after birth..." implying uncertainties.
> 
> From the midst of all this misgiving, You see nothing wrong with abortion.
> But if your perceptions are wrong, (we all must face that possibility),
> you would be inflicting pain, an atrocity from your points previous.
> 
> 	Let's be sure.    Mike Johnston

Do you mean that, if it could somehow be shown that fetuses feel no pain
(mental or physical) during abortions, that you would sanction them?  That
if we developed an abortion method that involved giving the fetus an injected
overdose of downers before its removal from the mother's body, you would
then feel allright about them?  If so, then are you just arguing that abortion
technology is the only problem?  

Mike Gray, BTL, WH