Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site noscvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!noscvax!powers
From: powers@noscvax.UUCP (William J. Powers)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Human beings
Message-ID: <1035@noscvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 30-Jul-85 10:55:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: noscvax.1035
Posted: Tue Jul 30 10:55:07 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 2-Aug-85 06:39:22 EDT
References: <392@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <1259@pyuxd.UUCP> <281@tove.UUCP>
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Lines: 58

> I don't understand why people keep saying that a fetus is "a
> parasite" and, therefore, is not living.  Even granting that a
> fetus could be loosely viewed as a parasite since it lives off
> his/her mother, this doesn't show that he/she is not living.  My
> dictionary says that a parasite is:
> 
> 	A plant or animal living in or on another organism...
> 
> Note that plants and animals are normally considered to be living
> and that even the verb "living" appears in this definition.
> 
> I realize that most of you probably don't make this mistake, but
> it has been stated too many times without contradiction to let it
> pass again...
> -- 
> Liz Allen    U of Maryland   ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz   liz@tove.ARPA
> 

I completely agree with this definition of the living; however, I draw
a completely different conclusion from it.  The fetus is as alive as a
carrot.  And, what's possibly more interesting, a fetus may be even
less important than a carrot.  Because we are alive, we must kill.
If you want to conclude from that indisbutable (sp?) fact that we are all 
murders, go ahead.  (I will reserve the definition of murder for a
smaller set of killing, i.e., that which a society disapproves of.)
So, if we are all killers, that does that mean that we have no respect
for life and the living?  The answer is clearly no.
As I have pointed out before, the association between a particular
action and attitude is impossible to make even within a given social
and cultural context.  I won't eat meat, because of what it says to me
about my relationship with the living and because of its adverse
effects on our global society.  The Eskimos live almost entirely upon
meat, yet they have a great respect and awe of animals that they eat
and depend upon for their very existence (how else to define the
sacred and holy).  Most Americans consume huge amounts of meat
unconsciously.  They treat with indifference (mostly due to isolation
and ignorance) the killing of countless numbers of living animals.
You tell me, who amongst these groups is moral, who is right, who
wrong?  There is no answer, yet that is exactly what we are discussing
on this net.  The outlawing of abortion is not (as in NOT) a moral
issue, it is a legal-social issue.
If you want to convince me that abortion should be illegal, you have
to convince me that every fetus should be saved.  And if every fetus
shlould be saved, why not every gamete?  Why should we not simply try
to create as much human life as we are capable of?  Why should India
try to limit her birth rate?  Isn't that murder.  Why should America
be able to grow unfettered and India not?  Why is killing of a fetus
different from the eating of a bannana which, in its growing, has
mamed the pickers and crippled their potential for growth.
Why is the killing of a fetus different from the conveyor belt
slaughter of beef (born to die).  The list is endless.
You have to convince me that the killing of this fetus is different
from the myriad of killing which, everyday, countless, unconscious
times we perform.  Our houses are dripping with blood, and yet, we
point our fingers accusingly at our neighbors, and, what is worse,
those we do not know and do not understand.  Somebodies eyes are full
of logs.
Enuf, Bill Powers.