Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site gcc-bill.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!gcc-bill!bird
From: bird@gcc-bill.ARPA (Brian Wells)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Life of mother vs. Life of fetus
Message-ID: <331@gcc-bill.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 31-Dec-69 18:59:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: gcc-bill.331
Posted: Wed Dec 31 18:59:59 1969
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Sep-85 06:26:27 EDT
References: <711@gitpyr.UUCP> <390@scirtp.UUCP> <5839@cbscc.UUCP> <740@gitpyr.UUCP> <5853@cbscc.UUCP> <749@gitpyr.UUCP> <316@gcc-bill.ARPA> <1286@ihlpg.UUCP>
Reply-To: bird@gcc-bill.UUCP (Brian Wells)
Distribution: net
Organization: General Computer Company, Cambridge Ma (Home of the HyperDrive)
Lines: 31
Summary: 

In article <1286@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes:
>> [Brian Wells]
>> 	I agree that the life of the mother is more important than that of
>> the unborn.  But I would only use this statement in a life or death situation
>> for the mother, not just to justify abortions in general.  Most abortions do
>> not meet this circumstance, so I oppose them.  
>____
>I'm glad you agree the life of the mother is more important than the
>life of the unborn.  It should then follow that you believe the unborn
>should not have the same FULL protection of the law that born human
>beings do, i.e., abortion should not legally be considered murder.
>You have conceded that the unborn should not legally be considered
>human beings, since if they were, there would be no reason to prefer
>the mother's life to the life of the unborn.
>If I have put words in your mouth, please tell me where I went wrong.
>-- 
>Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL  ihnp4!ihlpg!tan

I guess I needed to be a little clearer.  My intention was this:
	I can conceive of a situation where both the mother and the fetus
are in danger of losing life.  I think that this case is rather rare,
since they can now deliver babies early and save both.  But if faced with
such a situation, and there is a chance of saving one or the other, but not
both, then I would support saving the mother first.  I do not mean to imply
by this that the mother has free choice in all cases, rather only in that
special case when there is no way to save both her and the child.
	If I still come through vague, let me know.  I would be glad to
correspond through e-mail or US MAIL in the interest of not clogging up
this newsgroup, if you so desire.
							Brian Wells
James 1:5


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com