Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!husc6!topaz!ll-xn!nike!lll-crg!lll-lcc!qantel!ihnp4!houxm!houem!marty1
From: marty1@houem.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: It's still mine
Message-ID: <631@houem.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Sep-86 13:48:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: houem.631
Posted: Mon Sep 22 13:48:10 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Sep-86 01:31:16 EDT
References: <5152@decwrl.DEC.COM> <madvax.444>, <1091@ogcvax.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 40

In <1091@ogcvax.UUCP>, pase@ogcvax.UUCP (Douglas M. Pase) wrote:

   "Suppose we allow abortions for convenience.  'It's too inconvenient
   for me to be pregnant right now, I think I'll have an abortion.'
   I see no vast difference between that and 'It's too inconvenient
   for me to have children right now, I think I'll terminate my 2 year
   old.'  You may argue that the 2 year old is a person and the fetus
   is not (which in my opinion is mere semantic drivel), but certainly
   they are both alive.
   
   The major issue here is 'at what stage does a human life aquire the
   right to remain alive?'  Under what conditions does one's right to
   life supercede the convenience of another?  I don't recall the Bill
   of Rights mentioning anywhere a "right to a convenient life".  I do
   recall a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

These are valid questions and they have valid answers.  Some answers
have already been offered in this newsgroup but I would like to make
my own view of them clear.  If possible, perfectly clear.

There is a "vast" difference between a fetus and a two-year-old.  One
is a person and the other is not, and the semantics of the distinction
is not "drivel."  The state, in the exercise of its police powers, can
protect a two-year-old without imposing on the pursuit of happiness
of any other person.  For example, a two-year-old can become a foster
child.  It can not so protect a fetus.  It can not remove a fetus from
the body of its natural mother and place it in the body of a foster
mother.  If it could, abortion would be possible without killing the
fetus, and the whole argument about abortion would be different.

The state has eminent domain over real estate, but not over persons. 
It has no right to put a sign on a woman's belly saying "this property
is needed for public use."  The stage at which a living human thing
becomes a person is precisely the stage at which the state can protect
it as an individual without demanding the participation of some other
unwilling individual.

M. B. Brilliant					Marty
AT&T-BL HO 3D-520	(201)-949-1858
Holmdel, NJ 07733	ihnp4!houem!marty1