Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihlpg.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
From: tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: The Status of the Fetus and Its Rights
Message-ID: <1334@ihlpg.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 8-Oct-85 02:49:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihlpg.1334
Posted: Tue Oct  8 02:49:43 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 10-Oct-85 06:55:02 EDT
References: <429@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA> <1546@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 56

> > [Me, to Matt Rosenblatt]
> > 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.
-----
> [Matt Rosenblatt]
> I would outlaw all abortion except to save the mother's life.  Isn't that
> extreme enough for Mr. Tanenbaum?
-----
No. The extreme position I was referring to was that abortion should be
considered murder, not just another crime.
-----
> > 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. [Examples omitted]
-----
Not quite.  My premise was only that the willful destruction of the life
of an innocent full legal human being is legally murder.  That, indeed, is
equivalent to the legal DEFINITION of murder.  Therefore, if fetus killing
is a lesser crime than murder, then the fetus is not legally a full human being.
-----
> >  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.
-----
Yes, you have stated this value.  But by stating that you feel fetus-killing
should not be considered legal murder, you have deprived the fetus of its
legal status as a full human being.  It is then still necessary to define
a post-conception point at which the fetus gains its full legal humanity,
i.e. its destruction becomes legal murder.  The whole crux of the most often
stated pro-life argument is that conception is the most well-defined point to
make this distinction.  You, and other pro-lifers who believe abortion should
be a lesser crime than murder, have thrown away this argument.  Yet you
still use this argument, not realizing its inconsistency with your position.
If the fetus is an innocent human being, why should abortion not be murder?
If the fetus is not an innocent human being, what is the legal meaning
of the phrase "innocent human life" you keep using to justify your position?
-- 
Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL  ihnp4!ihlpg!tan