Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!matt From: matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: The Status of the Fetus and Its Rights Message-ID: <1095@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Thu, 29-Aug-85 11:42:20 EDT Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.1095 Posted: Thu Aug 29 11:42:20 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 1-Sep-85 08:16:43 EDT References: <429@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <1546@pyuxd.UUCP> <998@brl-tgr.ARPA> <1597@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: Ballistic Research Lab Lines: 84 >> I refuse to >> treat a class of beings that once included myself as we treat germs or bugs >> or worms. [MATT ROSENBLATT] > "You" were also once a sperm cell. And/or an egg? And/or inanimate matter. > [RICH ROSEN] No. You know when a unique genetic entity comes into existence with the genes that determine who "I" am. > [The fetus] is an independent > autonomous living being when it is capable of maintaining its own > internal metabolism physically independent of other organisms. Obviously > this does not include feeding, because all living organisms require > sustenance. We are talking about physical autonomy and its importance > as a criterion for independent life. At least I am. I'm not even sure > you're listening. [RICH ROSEN] You missed my point. Of course all living organisms require sustenance. But what does "independent" mean in this respect if the organism is incapable of getting its own sustenance? In plain English, an infant is as dependent as a bedridden adult on other people to bring it its food. A tree is independent because it makes its own food; a wild animal is independent because it finds and takes its own food. Neither a fetus nor a human infant can survive without imposing on people in one way or another. >> You said it yourself, Matt: "the anti-abortionists >> seek to EXTEND this FORCE farther back in time, REQUIRING the pregnant >> woman to keep the fetus inside her for nine months so that it will not >> [sic] die"!!!!! You've so clearly related the anti-abortionist position, >> I couldn't hope for a better clarification!!! You SEEK to EXTEND the >> FORCE upon a woman to REQUIRE her to keep the fetus inside her. How quaint. >> . . . >> Anyway, you said it yourself. YOU seek to EXTEND. The >> burden is on you . . . [RICH ROSEN] "Quaint" refers to the laws of all 50 States, democratically arrived at, as recently as 1973. Does something become "quaint" when it's been superseded for twelve years? My word "extend" means "restore to what it was 12 years ago," as in, "In 1945, the victorious allies extended the rights of non-Aryans in Germany to what they were in early 1933." You are right that the PRACTICAL burden is on the anti-abortionists, because they are the ones who are seeking to change the present law. That's the "burden of going forward with the evidence." The "ultimate burden of proof" is on those who seek to justify this type of killing as an exception to the general rule against killing, just as it is with those who seek to justify killing in war and capital punishment. > >>The limits to abortion do not reach into the time of pregnancy at which > >>doctors have even attempted to save a fetus from such a circumstance as > >>I describe, certainly before the point at which a fetus can be saved and > >>expect to live a life as a human being. [RICH ROSEN] > > Factual error which can be corrected by a counterexample: Two of my > > fellow-workers had two babies in succession, each born before the end > > of the second trimester, and therefore eligible for legal abortion. > > Both boys lived about 11 days, during which time doctors at the Johns > > Hopkins Hospital tried every method they could to save them, including > > jerry-rigging new methods that had not been tried before. [ROSENBLATT] >>"Lived"? Yes, I'm sure they tried their very best. And I wish they had >>succeeded. But they didn't. And I think that goes to show that such fetuses >>cannot survive outside the womb environment. [RICH ROSEN] All my counterexample shows is that the limits to abortion DO reach into the time of pregnancy at which doctors have ATTEMPTED to save a fetus. That's all it purported to show. And the failure of the attempt in the case of this couple's two babies does NOT show that such fetuses cannot survive -- it just shows that these two did not. ---------- Anytime I write an article, and someone writes a response, the fact that I may fail to respond to each and every one of his arguments does not necessarily mean that I have conceded his point. It may simply mean that I feel my original point stands because his argument is not so persuasive as mine. The other readers have read both my article and his response, so they judge for themselves which is more persuasive on any particular point. It would only waste everyone's time to reiterate stuff from the original article _ad nauseam_. -- Matt Rosenblatt