Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihlpg.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
From: tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: The Status of the Fetus and Its Rights
Message-ID: <1317@ihlpg.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 29-Sep-85 13:19:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihlpg.1317
Posted: Sun Sep 29 13:19:36 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 30-Sep-85 02:38:10 EDT
References: <429@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <1546@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 50

> > [Bill Tanenbaum]
> > There is one point that I think requires amplification.  The extreme
> > pro-life position of Matt Rosenblatt et. al. says that from the moment
> > of conception the embryo deserves full legal status as a human being.
> > A logical consequence of this position is that a woman who uses an
> > I. U. D. or a morning after pill is guilty of premeditated murder.
> > The penalty for premeditated murder is life imprisonment or death.
>------- 
> [Matt Rosenblatt]
> A while ago, I took issue with Ken Arndt (who generally speaks the straight
> truth about abortion -- where are you, Ken?) over his use of the technical
> legal term "murder" to describe abortion.  Our legal system has come a long
> way from the Old English common law under which every killing was murder.
> All victims are NOT equal; all circumstances are NOT equal, and the people,
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> through their elected representatives in all 50 states, have the right to
> define murder and other crimes as they see fit, subject only to the 
> limits imposed by the U.S. Constitution and their State constitutions.
> Abortion was never defined as "murder" -- it was a separate crime with
> its own penalties.  
-----------
Forget about what is NOW legal or illegal.  If you feel that premeditated
abortion SHOULD BE a distinct crime from premeditated murder, you must
agree that the fetus, at least in its earlier stages, should be legally
a distinct entity from a post-birth human being.  If you feel this way,
I was mistaken in saying that you took the extreme pro-life position.
However, you can then no longer use "the fetus is a human being" as your
sole justification for outlawing abortion.  We all agree that, if the
fetus had the same legal standing as a post-birth human being, that abortion
would be legally murder.  Since you have denied this full legal status to the
fetus, you must justify why you would grant the fetus sufficient partial legal
status to make abortion a crime.  You must state the values which compel
you to this belief, and why they are so overriding that you feel you should
have the right to impose your belief on all women.  Extreme pro-lifers do
not have to do this, since their granting of full human status to the fetus
makes their other positions follow logically.  All I can say to the
extreme pro-lifers is that, in my opinion, their values are badly distorted,
however consistent their logic may be.
> If I were a legislator considering a bill outlawing abortions, I would want
> to vary the penalty, depending on whether the woman knows she is pregnant
> at the time she kills her embryo/fetus, and depending on whether it is the
> woman herself who attempts abortion (women were almost never prosecuted
> under the old anti-abortion laws), or a professional abortionist. 
> 
> I believe that the user of an IUD or morning-after pill would lack the
> "specific intent" (another technical legal term) required to make out 
> a case of murder.
> 					-- Matt Rosenblatt
-- 
Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL  ihnp4!ihlpg!tan


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com