Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rutgers!sri-spam!sri-unix!hplabs!qantel!intelca!oliveb!tymix!whitehur From: whitehur@tymix.UUCP (Pamela K. Whitehurst) Newsgroups: talk.abortion Subject: Re: It's still mine Message-ID: <838@tymix.UUCP> Date: Wed, 8-Oct-86 12:51:55 EDT Article-I.D.: tymix.838 Posted: Wed Oct 8 12:51:55 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 16-Oct-86 04:31:26 EDT References: <5152@decwrl.DEC.COM> <1091@ogcvax.UUCP> <631@houem.UUCP> <1588@cbdkc1.UUCP> <1758@curly.ucla-cs.ARPA> <1606@cbdkc18 Oct 86 16:51:55 GMT Reply-To: whitehur@tymix.UUCP (Pamela K. Whitehurst) Distribution: world Organization: Tymnet Inc., Cupertino CA Lines: 78 In article <1606@cbdkc1.UUCP> pmd@dkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) writes: >A fetus is also a biologically independent entity. The only *biological* >relationship the fetus has to the mother (or father) is that of being >her offspring. The fetus is biologically dependent on the mother to provide oxygen and nutrition. >This is the same relationship that the 2-year-old has. >A 2-year-old is still completely dependent on some adult for all the >necessities of life; only the means of providing them changes with the >environment that the child lives in. Wouldn't it be great if we could change the environment of the fetus as easily? (A small point, the 2 year old is not dependent upon another for oxygen, one of the necessities of life) >The state CAN protect the fetus too, as I stated in the first paragraph. >I don't see why the fact that fetal humans need their biological mother's >care for 9 months means that the state can't take protective measures and >say no one should kill the child. The state could, if the people decided it was within the states authority. It would be more difficult, since the state can not remove the fetus from a hostile environment. >I also do not see how the fact that >more than one person may care for a born child means that the state SHOULD >protect that child. > >Another implication of your reasoning: If the wishes of the "host" make >all the difference as to whether the child lives or dies in the case of >the mother, does it also make that difference in the case of the state? >There are plenty of children who are wards of the state because no one >wants them or can take care of them. The state surely doesn't *want* them >either. The state does want them. At least, the state wants them protected and is willing to fund organizations to provide such care. I think most states have programs for supporting pregnant women also, it is not a natter of the state not wanting. >We require that the state take care of them because of *who* these >kids are (humans), not *where* they are, how *old* they are, or who *wants* >to take care of them. But, according to your reasoning, if a child is >completely dependent on someone for survival (even temporarily) that someone >has the right to terminate the child's life. So, since the state is >the "host" to these children, can the state kill them, since nobody wants >them? > >Again, the connection between CAN and SHOULD with regard to the protection >of an individual can only be made on the basis of who that individual *is*, >not on her circumstances. Because killing by abortion is justified by >the fetus' circumstance, it is inconsistent with the basis for human rights >we claim for humans who have been born. It's a double standard that doesn't >hold up. Either we drag the rest of humanity down and say the *every* human's >right to life depends not on the fact that they are human, but on circumstances >dictated by humans with power over them, or we acknowledge that if some >humans have the right to life, all do--equally. >-- > >Paul Dubuc cbdkc1!pmd Well, capital punishment already states that humans with power over others can deny them life. That, however, could be an exception to the rule if we allow that capital punishment is only used on adults who had some contol over getting into the situation to start with. -- Disclaimer: This is just my responding, with an ambiguous language, to what someone else wrote, in an ambiguous language. At no time did I read anyone's mind to find out what they really meant. Pamela K. Whitehurst ...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!whitehur ...!sun!idi!tymix!whitehur "Yes, it is bread we fight for, but we fight for roses too."