Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rutgers!caip!nike!oliveb!hplabs!sdcrdcf!ucla-cs!cc From: cc@locus.ucla.edu (Oleg "Kill the bastards" Kiselev) Newsgroups: talk.abortion Subject: Re: It's still mine Message-ID: <1758@curly.ucla-cs.ARPA> Date: Fri, 26-Sep-86 04:44:39 EDT Article-I.D.: curly.1758 Posted: Fri Sep 26 04:44:39 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 30-Sep-86 00:48:43 EDT References: <5152@decwrl.DEC.COM> <1091@ogcvax.UUCP> <631@houem.UUCP> <1588@cbdkc1.UUCP> Reply-To: oac6.oleg@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU (Oleg "Kill the bastards" Kiselev) Distribution: world Organization: Right down the hall, on your left (UCLA Computer Club) Lines: 17 In article <1588@cbdkc1.UUCP> pmd@dkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) writes: >The state can and has protected the fetus, with laws restricting >abortion. Why do you assume that protective measures are only possible >if a person is portable? You also seem to imply that portibility makes >one a person because the state *may* protect one in that case. You are missing the point, Paul. A 2-year old can be cared for by many different agencies, biological parents (mother, in particular) are not essential to the survival of the 2-year old. A 2-year old is a biologically independent entity. None of the above is true about a fetus. Therefore, the State CAN and SHOULD protect a 2-year old, because the child's survival does not need to depend on one, uniques person. A fetus depends on the host (mother) only and in protecting the fetus' right to life against the host's wishes the host's (mother's) rights are bound to be violated. Oleg Kiselev, HASA "A" div.