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!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!gcc-bill!bird
From: bird@gcc-bill.ARPA (Brian Wells)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Life of fetus vs. Life of mother?
Message-ID: <344@gcc-bill.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 4-Oct-85 18:40:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: gcc-bill.344
Posted: Fri Oct  4 18:40:37 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 7-Oct-85 05:35:00 EDT
References: <429@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <1546@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: bird@gcc-bill.UUCP (Brian Wells)
Organization: General Computer Company, Cambridge Ma (Home of the HyperDrive)
Lines: 47
Summary: It usually isn't...

In article <233@3comvax.UUCP> michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) writes:
>[ :=<< ]        (<- Shush! Line eater monster lurking!)  
>
>> > So what that the ``genetic entity'' that you possess, Matt --
>> > whether unique or not -- has just come into physical existence.  
>> > At that moment it is still but a single quantity of the chemical
>> > substance deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), located within a single
>> > eucaryotic cell similar in all functional respects to an amoeba!  
>> > . . .
>> > Levity aside, the ``pro-life'' movement philosophically
>> > maintains -- nay, *demands* -- that this single non-sentient
>> > cell's ``human'' rights [outweigh] the rights of an adult human!  
>> > [MICHAEL McNEIL]
>> 
>> You've got it!  ITS right to live outweighs HER right to kill it.
>> [MATT ROSENBLATT]
>
>This is the crux of the matter.  Pro-lifers weigh the life of a
>single, unfeeling, nearly microscopic *cell* against the life of a
>woman, and soberly declare that the scale tips toward the *cell*!  

	Actually we weigh the life of the fetus ( or cell, whatever stage
it is in for that matter) against the choice of the woman.  The life of
the woman is usually not at stake.  I believe most of us have said that
we would respect the mother's right to life at the expense of the fetus
if indeed the situation was that serious.

>If the stakes were trivial, since the pro-lifers are raising such
>a fuss, I and no doubt many others would be inclined to give them
>what they want, just to shut them up.  Raising this reaction is
>precisely what they are they are trying to accomplish, of course.  

	If the stakes were trivial we would not be speaking out against
abortion.  

>However, the stakes are not small.  Thousands of women's lives
>depend, emotionally and physically, on the maintenance of their
>right to personal privacy.  Because of this, we must oppose you.  

	I seriously doubt that losing privacy will cost women their
lives.  They may have to adjust their lifestyles, but I count that as
nothing when weighed against the loss of the fetus' life in an
abortion.  I think you exaggerated a bit here.  	
>
>Michael McNeil
							Brian Wells
James 1:5