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!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!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: <1260@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Thu, 5-Sep-85 13:44:57 EDT Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.1260 Posted: Thu Sep 5 13:44:57 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 8-Sep-85 04:46:37 EDT References: <436@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <1631@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: Ballistic Research Lab Lines: 89 Mr. Newton and Mr. Rosen: Enough already! Isn't 900 lines of "who-shot-John?" enough? How much longer do we have to wade through it? Why doesn't each of you restate the principles and assumptions upon which his argument rests? Then we would see that two people, both with sound arguments and relying on substantially the same facts, can reach opposite conclusions simply because their principles and assumptions differ radically. Surprise!! >> The evidence shows that seven-month-old fetuses are human, and yet you >> refuse to acknowledge that fact, choosing instead to say that they're >> 'close' and trying to drop the subject. [T. NEWTON] > > The "evidence"? Can the seven month old fetus live as an independent > autonomous entity the way a newborn infant can? Then why doesn't it? > If you really believe this to be true, then why force women to endure > nine months of pregnancy? Obviously you have scientific proof that the > fetus can be removed at seven months and be a full fledged autonomous > human being, so let's remove ALL the fetuses at seven months and save > the women the problems of an additional two months with a fetus inside her. > Ante up. [R. ROSEN] If Mr. Rosen is saying either that the seven-month fetus cannot be removed at seven months and be an autonomous human being, he is wrong. Before the days of sophisticated neonatal life-support equipment and techniques, premature babies of seven months' gestation did survive -- one of them works right here in my laboratory. All the fancy equipment did was increase the proportion of such babies that survive, although not to 100%. "Let's remove ALL the fetuses at seven months and save the women the problems of an additional two months with a fetus inside her"? If ALL such fetuses could be sustained (leaving aside the problem of cost), that might be a reasonable idea. But both Mr. Rosen and Mr. Newton know that whatever you call a seven-month fetus, "autonomous" vel non, "independent" vel non, "human being" vel non, some of them will survive immediate removal from the womb and some will not. It's a question of values, not facts. Mr. Rosen seems to think it's better to risk the death of the seven-month fetus (or to ensure its quick death with an abortion, if unwanted) than to burden the pregnant woman with an additional two months of pregnancy. Mr. Newton does not, and neither do I. > >>Damn right! Partially because they know that EVEN for a 7-month fetus (as > >>you admit), and certainly for one that hasn't been around as long, it is > >>less than unlikely that the fetus would not survive into lifehood, and if > >>it did it was likely to be terribly deformed. [R. ROSEN] Most of them can be saved, without any deformity. Call the Medical School at your local University, or the Neonatal Intensive Care ward at your local hospital, and ask what percentage of seven-month premature babies survive. I say it's way over 50%, but don't rely on me. Get the facts yourself. > Nonsense. Rights are things "granted" by governments, basically meaning > that the government will not allow interference with your native abilities > (natural rights?) to do these particular things. [R. ROSEN] R. Rosen??? Asserting that rights are things granted by governments? I thought that's Matt Rosenblatt's kind of talk!!! Make sure you specify whether you're talking about legal rights or moral rights, or we'll see another 500 lines of argument over where rights come from. > What rights do fetuses have in this scheme? [R. ROSEN] Governments do more than merely non-interfere with your native abilities (natural rights TO DO THINGS); they also protect your natural rights NOT TO HAVE THINGS DONE TO YOU, i.e., they protect the weak from the strong. If a government decides that the fetus has a right not to be killed, it will protect that right. The present Government (read, "Supreme Court") has decided that the fetus has no such rights, so fetuses have no legal rights. Right-to-lifers by definition believe that fetuses have a moral right not to be killed, so they seek to change the present Government to the point where the fetus will have a legal right not to be killed. They have already changed the President and most (but not 2/3) of the Senate, and one Justice. > Surely they have rights if you assume they are human. [R. ROSEN] The nice thing about rights being "granted by governments" is that governments do not have to follow Mr. Rosen's or anyone else's rules in granting rights. They can grant rights to the fetus even if it is not human. -------------- Seriously, neither of you is under a compulsion to reply to every single point his opponent makes. If you've stated your position, and your opponent has stated his, let the rest of us decide whose argument is sounder. What kind of light do comments like "bogus!" or "A lie on top of another lie" shed on the issue at hand? -- Matt Rosenblatt