Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: The Status of the Fetus and Its Rights Message-ID: <1848@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Mon, 7-Oct-85 23:28:43 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1848 Posted: Mon Oct 7 23:28:43 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 10-Oct-85 06:42:11 EDT References: <429@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <1546@pyuxd.UUCP> <322@gcc-bill.ARPA> <1765@pyuxd.UUCP> <343@gcc-bill.ARPA> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 60 >>Do you anti-choicers ever tire of the "you fucked >>around, so suffer" argument? I have. It's irrelevant to the issue (you >>don't like what she [and apparently someone else?] did, so you feel >>that "consequences" should be "suffered") and pointless. If I write a >>program and it has a bug in it and it ravages through everyone's files >>and starts destroying them all, am I (and is my installation) obliged to >>let it run because "I submitted the job"? Or can we take steps to stop >>the program from completing? The ball is in your court to show why the >>woman doesn't have that same option, and you have continuously (as a group) >>failed to do so. > No, Rich, I don't tire of the argument. And I am not as unsympathetic > and insensitive as you imply. I believe in preventing unwanted pregnancies > not aborting them. I also believe in helping people with the alternatives > to abortion, because I believe the fetus is alive and I value that human > life. > To answer your questions, you are not obliged to let that program > run, you may take steps to stop the program from completing. A woman is > not a computer, a baby is not a program, a developing fetus does not go > through a woman's body destroying her parts. Furthermore, the computer > is not alive, and by means of backup media, the system can be restored to > the state prior to when your program went around doing the destruction. > I contend that the program/computer-baby/woman analogy does not fit for > the above reasons. It never ceases to amaze me. You defuse one argument used by anti-abortionists (e.g., that the fetus is an autonomous living human being) and they automatically switch to another one that had been debunked much earlier, like this one. The point is, this argument ALONE is not (for the reasons I outlined) sufficient. How do you all keep in sync as to which argument is "in vogue"? :-? Without some other supporting argument, this perspective of "you fucked around so suffer" is baseless. Even WITH a supporting reason (which I have yet to see) it adds nothing to any other argument. It merely shows the desire of its users to punish those nasty horrible people who do things that they don't like. But it does not shock me to see people returning to it when there is so little else to turn to. >>> Why is autonomy so important in determining if it is alive? I have >>> never heard this before reading your postings. And when I use scientific >>> reasoning I come to the conclusion that the fetus is alive. I would like >>> to see some source references to back you up because I have only seen you >>> make these claims. >>Why is metabolism important in determining whether something is alive? >>Or respiration? Or reproductive capability? Is this the Brave New World >>in which if you don't like the definition of something you just change >>it around? Read up on viruses, my friend, and find out how they are >>distinguished from living things. > All I asked was a simple question. I am still waiting for an > answer. I did not change any definitions. In fact I didn't even give > a definition. I will read up on viruses if you read up on fetuses and > see how they are distinguished from viruses. So nice to be working from the conclusion. When you leave out autonomy and blithely claim "why is it important", you are changing the definition. I would hope that is a simple enough answer. -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr