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!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!dual!vecpyr!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!gcc-bill!bird
From: bird@gcc-bill.ARPA (Brian Wells)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Demarcation of life
Message-ID: <345@gcc-bill.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 4-Oct-85 19:20:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: gcc-bill.345
Posted: Fri Oct  4 19:20:58 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 7-Oct-85 04:44:42 EDT
References: <306@gcc-bill.ARPA> <2378@ut-ngp.UTEXAS> <317@gcc-bill.ARPA> <2441@ut-ngp.UTEXAS>
Reply-To: bird@gcc-bill.UUCP (Brian Wells)
Distribution: net
Organization: General Computer Company, Cambridge Ma (Home of the HyperDrive)
Lines: 79

Key:	>>  from an old posting of mine (Brian Wells)
	 >  from Ken Montgomery
In article <2441@ut-ngp.UTEXAS> kjm@ut-ngp.UTEXAS (Ken Montgomery) writes:
>>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".

	Your debate over the meaning of natural is what brought this
discussion on.  	

>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.

	Funny you should say that...

>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.

	Personally, I thought your claim that babies weren't the 
natural result of a pregnancy was nonsense.  (But we aren't debating
"natural" :-) )

>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_... :~>

	This is not necessarily true.  Assuming that a woman properly
takes care of herself in the first place, she may not have to increase
her diet or exercise.  In fact, some women do not not do any of the 
things you mentioned and still have perfectly healthy babies.  My wife
was particularly amazed that some of the women on the maternity ward
had not quit smoking or drinking and had no problems at all.  Furthermore
those hormonal changes are still automatic functions, and besides, she
doesn't have to deal with the hormonal changes and discomfort of the
menstrual cycle for those nine months.  

>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."

	Taken from my position that the fetus is alive and that its
life is valuable, and that the fetus'life is more valuable than the 
woman's convenience, and that pregnancy is a natural biological
function, it follows.

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

	I find the same to be true of _men_ who espouse pro-choice
positions.  ( Or should I have said anti-life? :-)  )

>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]

							Brian Wells
James 1:5