Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ut-ngp.UTEXAS
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!amd!vecpyr!lll-crg!mordor!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm
From: kjm@ut-ngp.UTEXAS (Ken Montgomery)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Demarcation of life
Message-ID: <2441@ut-ngp.UTEXAS>
Date: Mon, 30-Sep-85 18:45:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.2441
Posted: Mon Sep 30 18:45:14 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 4-Oct-85 04:35:54 EDT
References: <306@gcc-bill.ARPA> <2378@ut-ngp.UTEXAS> <317@gcc-bill.ARPA>
Distribution: net
Organization: UTexas Computation Center, Austin, Texas
Lines: 46

>You are right, Ken.  There is overt support of the mother through all
>those details.  I will not deny that.  And if any of these functions
>fails, then the fetus will die.  But the woman doesn't throw any switches
>or anything to make these functions go.  They automatically start when
>conception occurs.  If she stays healthy, the NATURAL result is a baby.
>All those functions of material transfer and supplying the needs through
>the placenta are NATURAL functions that the woman's body will perform
>if you just let it be.  Your desire to point out the details will not
>change that.  I contend that it still follows: The natural result of 
>conception is baby, and that is the way it should be.  [Brian Wells]

I'm still going to decline to debate the meaning of the word "natural".
It's like the word "love" -- it appears to mean so many different
things to so many different people that it has now lost most (if not
all) of its claim to objective meaning.

Your objection about "details" is nonsense.  It is precisely the
means used to achieve an end (the "details", in this case), that
determine whether that end is moral/ethical.

Your objections are nonsense in another way.  It is false that "the
woman doesn't throw any switches or anything to make these functions
go."  A pregnant woman must eat more, and in the correct nutrient
proportions.  She must, if she wants to bear a healthy baby, abstain
from alcohol, tobacco, etc.  She must exercise correctly and in the
right amount.  She must put up with hormonal disturbances that can
result in morning sickness and complexion changes.  She must, as the
pregnancy progresses, put up with increasing motility loss.  An effort
above and beyond that of the usual (non-pregnancy) state is required
for her to stay healthy.  And this is not having to do anything?!
_We_ believe _you_... :~>

As for your "let it be" argument, I fail to see why facts of biology
constitute moral/ethical imperatives.  I utterly fail to see _why_ it
follows that, as you say, "that is the way it should be."

And I find it to be preposterously safe and convenient for _men_ to
espouse anti-choice positions.

--
The above viewpoints are mine.  They are unrelated to
those of anyone else, including my cat and my employer.

Ken Montgomery  "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs"
...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm  [Usenet, when working]
kjm@ngp.UTEXAS.EDU  [Internet, if the nameservers are up]


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com