Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: I was a teenaged pregancy Message-ID: <5853@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Sat, 7-Sep-85 21:03:06 EDT Article-I.D.: cbscc.5853 Posted: Sat Sep 7 21:03:06 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 9-Sep-85 01:47:21 EDT References: <711@gitpyr.UUCP>, <390@scirtp.UUCP> <5839@cbscc.UUCP>, <740@gitpyr.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus Lines: 63 >> Deciding that one's own life wasn't worth saving is one thing. . . > >You are konphused, sir, my life is well worth living, but my reply to the >taunt of "ask any kid how he would feel about having been aborted" is, "how >could I care?" I would never have existed. Thats like asking me how I would >feel if my parents had had half their wits and used contraceptives. My point was that the circumstances that surround birth have no bering whatsoever on whether abortion is justified. If human life has any value the circumstances under which that life is born don't affect that value any more than the color of the child's skin. In what sense would you never have existed? Abortion is not done on an non-existent human. It's true that the question of how would you feel if you had been aborted is silly. But it is just as silly for any human at any stage of her life. If we can kill people instantly and painlessly so that they "never knew what hit them", is the killing then justified? Your argument seemed to imply that since the fetus may not realize she is being killed, it is therefore acceptable to kill her. Why just the fetus? >> . . .example, the lives of others born under similar circumstances >> aren't worth saving either comes pretty close to playing God. >I didn't say they should have been aborted, I said you have no right tell >anyone they MUST have a child. I have seen first hand how having a child and >a family when one isn't ready for it, emotionally, or financially, can destroy >two very promising lives. Were you ready to raise a family when >you were in highschool? My position is that killing one's child, wheter born yet or not, is not and acceptable solution to the problems surrounding pregnancy. It certainly is not the only solution. >When an abortion is possible, there is no entity, if there were, this would >be a clear moral issue. There is only the potential of a sentient being. >You are trying to use your morality to draw a line of demarcation. Where >will that line be when a human life can be created from a skin cell underneath >your toenail? What line of demarkation are you imposing? What is the basis for that line? Sentience? How do you define it and why is it a legitimate dividing line? "Creating" a human being from a skin cell is still in the realm of science fiction. For all we know it may always be in that realm. I see no cumpulsion to base our ethics on the possibilities that we may dream up, even if I thought it would make a difference. When, and if, human clones become reality, we can deal with it. >You argue from the standpoint of morality and religion where the issue is lost >in mirky vagueness.. There is no universal morality, and certainly no universal >religion.. (I can see the ethnocentric eyebrows raised at that one.) >I argue from the point of social good. The issue is clear there, and it would >appear that the people who run this country know it. I don't believe your concept of "social good" is as clear to everyone as it seems to you. It seems rather murky and vague to me. How do you support the value or your own life vis-a-vis the fetus with the concept of "social good". -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd