Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mgwess.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!ihnp1!ihnp4!mgnetp!mgwess!plw From: plw@mgwess.UUCP (Pete Wilson) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Fetuses, Rights, & Responsibilities Message-ID: <14936@mgwess.UUCP> Date: Sun, 4-Aug-85 19:16:06 EDT Article-I.D.: mgwess.14936 Posted: Sun Aug 4 19:16:06 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 6-Aug-85 09:39:22 EDT Organization: AT&T Information Systems - Montgomery Illinois Lines: 93 There seems to be a couple of arguments going on in this group which are interrelated but separate. One of these 'discussions' is centered on the status of a fetus. The life cycle of a member of the species homo sapiens starts at the fertilization of an ovum by a sperm and continues until death. I make this conclusion based on the lack of personal knowledge of any currently living member of said species having been 'constructed' from 'spare parts' and starting life as an adult, or teenager, or even at any other point beyond which we refer to as 'birth'. It might be that in years to come, medical science will progress to the point where this is possible, and at that time, any discussions concerning 'fetuses' will be moot. All these arguments about a fetus not being 'alive', not a member of the species, etc., seem to be going against current biological knowledge concerning the life cycle of our species. The above is my reasoning behind the belief that a fetus is alive and a member of the human race. Arguments could be made on whether or not a fetus is a member of a society and is entitled to the priviledges of that society. The discussion about the 'rights' of the 'unborn' is also an interesting one. Those who argue that a fetus has no rights seem to be saying something to the effect that we all must pass a 'test' to be granted the right to continue living. Once we pass this 'test' ( I believe the current name for it is 'birth' ), those of us who have already passed say 'OK, you made it! Now we will do whatever we can to ensure that you may continue'. This, to me anyway, is what is meant by 'right to life' as proposed by those who say the fetus has no rights. Those who argue that a fetus does indeed have rights are met with arguments about those rights versus the rights of the person in whose body the fetus is encased (for purposes of nurishment and growth). A rather sticky wicket, this. Any attempt at resolving conflicting rights always is extremely difficult. One inclination is to defend the fetus because it can't defend itself and needs an advocate. But this doesn't seem fair to the 'carrier' of the fetus. This person should be able to follow any and all paths it has chosen without interference of a(n unwanted) fetus. I find it very difficult, if not impossible, to choose sides in this. Both sides seem to be equally strong in their arguments. (An aside here - you may have noticed an attempt at neutral sex in the above paragraph. That is probably futile, or even dumb, because it is only the female of the species which has the ability to 'carry' a fetus. Also, any discussions concerning the definition of 'rights' and whence they come, more properly belong in net.philosophy. An assumption is made here (probably in error) that there is a general understanding of what is meant by a 'right'. No assumption is made about the origin of a 'right'.) Since I can't decide whose rights take precedence, I find I must seek a solution elsewhere. The following statements are not argued from a basis in absolute fact, but rather from generalizations and a personal sense of 'rightness'. As mentioned in the aside, it is the female of the species which has the onus, if you will, of bearing the young of this species. It would seem, therefore, that women would be more concerned about getting pregnant than men. Since it is extremely doubtful that women, in general, would want to get pregnant from every (or even ANY) engagement in sexual activity, they would take whatever precautions are necessary to prevent unwanted pregnancy. These precautions would include seeing to it that their partner also, or in place of, takes similar precautions. I am a firm believer that a woman should have a choice in whether or not she gets pregnant and therefore have very strong feelings against forced sex (read rape). In conjunction with the above, I also believe that people should be prepared for the consequences of their actions. Since it is widely known (although not widely enough) that sex causes pregnancy, I would think that people, women in particular, are aware that engaging in sexual activity carries a risk of getting the woman pregnant. The state- ment that a woman should be able to choose to have an abortion or not is placing the choice at a point past where the choice should have been made. Do not misconstrue that statement to mean that I am not aware or don't believe that birth-control methods fail and unplanned pregnancies do occur in spite of all precautions. This goes back to a willingness to accept the consequences of one's actions - some call this responsibility and others call it punishment. It just seems 'right', or correct, that individuals should be willing to accept the risks and consequences of their actions and 'wrong', or incorrect, to terminate the existance of the unborn of one's own species. This sense of 'right' and 'wrong' is what some call morality or ethics. As mentioned above, this morality is not arguable from absolute fact and doesn't hold up solidly under instantiation. Believing as I do, I cannot say that a law should be passed making abortion illegal - that implies an absolute morality. I also cannot agree with 'abortion on demand', or abortion as a method of birth control. The best I can do is encourage a sense of respect for the life of the fetus and a sense of responsibility for one's own actions. The two are not mutually exclusive. Pete Wilson AT&T IS CGBS Montgomery Works ..!ihnp4!mgnetp!mgwess!plw P.S. Was I equivocal enough? Did I cover my ass well enough and still manage to say something of importance? P.P.S. The above questions are rhetorical - this is not a test.