Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site 3comvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm
From: michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Demarcation of life
Message-ID: <232@3comvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 26-Sep-85 18:29:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: 3comvax.232
Posted: Thu Sep 26 18:29:04 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 29-Sep-85 06:46:08 EDT
References: <306@gcc-bill.ARPA> <2378@ut-ngp.UTEXAS> <1471@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: 3Com Corp; Mountain View, CA
Lines: 80

[purrr...]

> > >				  The natural result of conception
> > >is a baby.  Even though it is just a clump of cells for a while, with
> > >no recognizable human form, it will develop into a baby if left to its
> > >natural course.  [BRIAN WELLS]
> > 
> > Pregnancy involves the _continuous_ transfer of material between
> > the bodies of the fetus and its mother.  Thus it is precisely _not_
> > "leaving" the fetus to anything.  If the placenta fails to transfer
> > the proper materials between the two bodies, the fetus will die.
> > If the mother's body cannot supply the proper materials in the
> > requisite quantities to the fetus, it will die.  [KEN MONTGOMERY]
> 
> It is obvious that the disagreement here results from two different
> meanings of the word "natural" being used.  To me, and probably to
> Mr. Wells, this transfer of materials between the pregnant woman's
> body and the fetus's body is eminently natural.  True, 20% of pregnancies
> end in spontaneous abortion ("miscarriage"), so the process is not 100%
> foolproof.  But in the other 80%, the process of gestation and birth
> will result in a live birth.  [MATT ROSENBLATT]

It is just as "natural" for the egg and sperm to come together.  
They also "will develop into a baby if left to ... natural course"  
(unless you are all arguing that *sex* is "unnatural," of course).  
And yet, none of you seem to be suggesting that "human rights" be
extended to these very-human beings *prior* to their union.  None
of you are suggesting that people be *required* to have sex and be
*required* to get pregnant because "it will develop into a baby if
left to its natural course."  Your position is *quite* illogical.  
Don't all those never-to-be babies also deserve "human rights"?  

> >						 The choice that a
> > pregnant woman faces is to aid the fetus or to remove it from her
> > body.  There is nothing whatsoever of _leaving_ it to "its natural
> > course" involved in this decision, because its "natural course"
> > _requires the overt aid of her body_.  [KEN MONTGOMERY]
> 
> What does "overt aid" mean?  Getting someone to abort her is an overt
> act, and results in removing the fetus from her body.  If she performs
> no overt act, there is an 80% chance she will have a live birth.  Mr.
> Montgomery would make his argument more clearly if he would give us
> his definitions of "natural" and "overt."  [MATT ROSENBLATT]

This debate about "overt aid" should make it clear how imprecise these
terms are.  Given the general meanings these terms hold, surely as much
overt assistance by the mother is needed to *make* a baby as to prevent
its birth.  For example, if the woman "performs no overt act," not only
will no baby be born, but the woman will *die* of starvation.  *Eating*
is an "overt act" on anyone's part.  And how about seeing a doctor, and
going to the hospital when the time comes, and simply keeping sheltered
and warm and clothed.  Being *human* involves performing a continuous
sequence of "overt acts" that the life of the baby-to-be depends on.  

> Does it really matter whether a zygote splits to become identical twins
> or not?  When the split does occur, it happens so early that "banning
> abortion from the time of conception" and "banning abortion from the
> latest possible time of splitting into multiple individuals" would be
> indistinguishable in any practical sense.  [MATT ROSENBLATT]

Please notice everybody!  Matt is here agreeing that, since the zygote
*is* capable of becoming different individuals following fertilization,
he is willing to forego the special "humanity" that he sees conferred
by the initial coming together of the zygote's "unique genetic entity."  
(Wearers of I.U.D.s, you *may* be able to rest easy.  :-))  

-- 

Michael McNeil
3Com Corporation     "All disclaimers including this one apply"
(415) 960-9367
..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm

        ... if "dead" matter has reared up this curious landscape
        of fiddling crickets, song sparrows, and wondering men, it
        must be plain even to the most devoted materialist that the
        matter of which he speaks contains amazing, if not dreadful
        powers, and may not impossibly be, as Hardy has suggested,
        "but one mask of many worn by the Great Face behind."  
                Loren Eiseley, *The Immense Journey*, 1946


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com