Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: The Status of the Fetus and Its Rights Message-ID: <1630@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Tue, 3-Sep-85 12:51:15 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1630 Posted: Tue Sep 3 12:51:15 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 5-Sep-85 02:36:04 EDT References: <429@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <1546@pyuxd.UUCP> <998@brl-tgr.ARPA> <1597@pyuxd.UUCP> <1095@brl-tgr.ARPA> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 96 >>> 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. No "no". A zygote may split into two separate entities to form fetuses that become identical twins. Thus your statement is preposterous. >> [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? It means that if it is using the inside of a person's body for sustenance, the person has the right to remove it. > 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. But an infant is a physically autonomous being, and thus qualifies for status as an independent separate human being. Your reasoning could just as easily be applied to rocks. Why aren't rocks called life forms just because they don't exhibit any of the characteristic of life forms? >>> 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." Then let's "extend" the rights of people to own slaves, too. That would be another great step forward by your reasoning. > 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. Nonsense, of course. If I were to make the same claim for rocks, saying "I insist that rocks are alive, living autonmous beings, and smashing them up into little pieces is murder by my reasoning and thus you should not do it.", I would be laughed at. Rightfully so. Your position is not different. >>>>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. Then show us two that did. This is most vacuous, my friend. -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr