Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rutgers!caip!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!ihlpa!gadfly
From: gadfly@ihlpa.UUCP (Gadfly)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Best for Others?
Message-ID: <2018@ihlpa.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 9-Oct-86 16:21:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihlpa.2018
Posted: Thu Oct  9 16:21:02 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 16-Oct-86 05:27:17 EDT
References: <2710@burdvax.UUCP> <5833@ut-sally.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 19
Xref: linus talk.religion.misc:488 talk.abortion:126

--
> Morally, you can't do anything but consider the fetus a "person."

False.  Clearly, you must consider it "human", but "person"--what exactly
is a person?  All reasonable definitions ultimately resort to common
sense (a person is something that looks or acts like one), and this
excludes a 3-day old clump of cells.  And indeed, many quite upstanding
ethical codes, at present and through history, do not consider a fetus
to be a person.  It may become a person, just as Prince Andrew may become
king of England.  It thus has a *claim* to rights, as Andrew has a *claim*
to the throne.  Claims, of course, are relative, as Charles and Di might
tell you.

                    *** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI   ***** *****
                 ****** ******  09 Oct 86 [18 Vendemiaire An CXCV]
ken perlow       *****   *****
(312)979-8042     ** ** ** **
ihnp4!ihlpa!gadfly  *** ***     <== NOTE NEW ADDRESS!