Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunker.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!ittatc!bunker!garys
From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
Message-ID: <1110@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 21-Mar-86 10:49:07 EST
Article-I.D.: bunker.1110
Posted: Fri Mar 21 10:49:07 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 22-Mar-86 08:06:57 EST
References: <11560@watnot.UUCP> <9534@ucla-cs.ARPA> <610@bunkerb.UUCP> <9792@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Reply-To: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Distribution: na
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 46
Summary: 

In article <9792@ucla-cs.ARPA> cs111olg@ucla-cs.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev (the student incarnation)) writes:
>In article <610@bunkerb.UUCP> garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes:
>>>I feel the an unwanted child
>>>birth DOES threaten the mother's life if not physically, then emotionally
>>>and financially.
>>
>>All those poor people are threatening my life.  If not physically, then
>>emotionally and financially.  Does that give me the right to get rid of
>>them to alleviate that threat?  (My answer: of course not.)  So what's the
>>difference?  (Expected answer (yours): the fetus is not yet a person).
>>OK, back to the issue then (is the fetus a "person"?).
>
>No, my answer is "Get rid of poverty by elevating the people out of it."
>"Poor people are threatening" your life only because you are indirectly
>responsible for their condition. (This belongs in net.politics!)

Fine.  Why not apply that solution to the problem of unwanted fetuses?
I.e., if elevating people out of poverty is better than getting rid
of them, why isn't deciding to care for fetuses better than getting
rid of them?

>If you don't see how woman's wellbeing is more important than the wellbeing
>of a fetus - we might as well stop this discussion now.

OK.

>We obviously have 
>systems of values and understanding of RIGHT and WRONG so vastly different
>that there is no point to any arguments. What's RIGHT to me is WRONG to you.
>How can we even hope to reach any  understanding????

Understanding may be possible.  Agreement is another problem.

...

>FIRST, I doubt I have ever denied a fetus being a HUMAN BEING. 
>SECOND, Fetus is not a PERSON, however, and can NOT make ANY choices.
>It is not even ALIVE in any real sense!!!! It is a part of it's host's 
>("mother's") body!

How can you contradict yourself so blatantly and not notice?
It's not alive, but it's a human being?  How is that possible?
And what's a person other than a human being?  What is your definition
of "alive"?

Gary Samuelson