Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!matt
From: matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt )
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: The Status of the Fetus and Its Rights
Message-ID: <1859@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 31-Dec-69 18:59:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.1859
Posted: Wed Dec 31 18:59:59 1969
Date-Received: Fri, 4-Oct-85 05:31:09 EDT
References: <429@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <1546@pyuxd.UUCP> <998@brl-tgr.ARPA> <1597@pyuxd.UUCP> <1095@brl-tgr.ARPA> <214@3comvax.UUCP> <315@gcc- <1317@ihlpg.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 40

BILL TANENBAUM writes:

> 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.

I would outlaw all abortion except to save the mother's life.  Isn't that
extreme enough for Mr. Tanenbaum?

> 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.

It may be that Mr. Tanenbaum is arguing from a hidden premise, namely, that
all human beings are entitled to the same legal rights.  If one holds that
premise, then by treating fetus-killing as a different crime from killing 
an already-born human being, society was admitting that the fetus was not
a full human being.  It will come as no surprise to readers of this net
that Matt Rosenblatt does not hold this premise.  Distinctions based on
birth are part of the American legal system (e.g., a naturalized U.S. 
citizen cannot become President); part of the English legal system (royalty);
part of the Biblical system (different rules for priests, Levites and
plain Israelites) -- and all these distinctions show that the premise
"all human beings are entitled to the same legal rights" has never been
put into practice anywhere.

>			  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.  

I've stated these values several times on net.abortion.  I believe the fetus
is innocent human life, whose preservation outweighs all other considerations
on the part of the woman except the preservation of her own life.

						-- Matt Rosenblatt


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com