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: <1674@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Sep-85 20:32:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1674
Posted: Thu Sep 12 20:32:32 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Sep-85 05:11:04 EDT
References: <429@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <1546@pyuxd.UUCP> <998@brl-tgr.ARPA> <1597@pyuxd.UUCP> <1095@brl-tgr.ARPA> <214@3comvax.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 57

> Rich, I'll disagree with you first.  I don't agree that dependency
> by the fetus is an important consideration in the abortion debate.  
> If a human (adult, say) should be connected with another by some
> vital lifeline, surely the person that line was tied to would *not*
> be able to cut it on a whim.  The fact that the fetus isn't built
> to live outside the womb until birth doesn't alter that situation.  [McNEIL]

First, there's a big difference between being tied to a machine for
a small subset of life functions and being tied to A HUMAN BEING for
all life support.  Are the machine's rights in violation because the
person is "using" it?  Of course not.  Are the woman's rights in violation
if an entity is "using" her without her consent?

> Why must the reason be *compelling*?  Because we're talking
> about subordinating the rights of one who is agreed by all
> to be a living, breathing, feeling and thinking, admittedly
> female :-), human being.  And it is no minor subordination.  
> Many, mostly males it seems, talk as if it is but a *small*
> matter for a woman to be forced to take the trouble and risk
> of carrying a fetus to term and delivering it.  Many others,
> of course, see it as quite proper dues-paying -- on the woman's
> part -- for having led a ``loose life.''  (Need I say :-) ?)  

Yes, because of the ease with which things are misconstrued here.  But well
said nonetheless.

> Some defending the pro-choice side of the argument, however,
> have taken the tactic of declaring the fetus is *not alive*
> at all.  This is not only incorrect, it is ridiculous.  *Of
> course* the sperm, egg, embryo, and fetus are all *alive*,
> according to generally accepted biological definitions of
> ``life.''  The question remains, are they ``human'' life --
> and, if so, according to what meaning of the term ``human''?  
> 
> What ``human life'' means is subject to definition.  If you
> don't believe this, Matt and Rich, why did Pope Paul III in
> 1537 feel the necessity to issue his papal bull *Sublimis Deus*
> which revealed the Indians of North and South America to be
> *human beings*, endowed with soul and reason?  Clearly, *some*
> people didn't find Indians' humanity to be all that obvious!  

The fact was that if they had been using a serious scientific investigation
(which shows that we are all of the same species) rather than ancient
superstitions and prejudices, the definition would have been obvious.
Furhtermore, the criterion of autonomy is an important one is determining
whether an organism is a living organism or not.  Spermatozoa and ova
are alive and independent in the context of their environment (the testes
and the ovaries).  Are they human?  Of course not.  Partly because even
if we reproduced parthenogenetically, the entity at that point is not
capable of independent life in an environment appropriate for humans:
"the open air", so to speak.  Neither is the fetus until very late in
the pregnancy.
-- 
"to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day
 to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human
 being can fight and never stop fighting."  - e. e. cummings
	Rich Rosen	ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr