Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!ucla-cs!oleg%OACVAX.BITNET From: oleg%OACVAX.BITNET@ucla-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: talk.abortion Subject: Re: It's still mine Message-ID: <1961@curly.ucla-cs.ARPA> Date: Tue, 7-Oct-86 02:34:24 EDT Article-I.D.: curly.1961 Posted: Tue Oct 7 02:34:24 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 8-Oct-86 04:29:51 EDT References: <5152@decwrl.DEC.COM> <1091@ogcvax.UUCP> Reply-To: oleg%OACVAX.BITNET (Oleg "Kill the bastards" Kiselev) Distribution: na Organization: Right down the hall, on your left (UCLA Computer Club) Lines: 75 Paul! PLEASE, don't make it SO HARD to keep trying to talk to you! I have stopped replying to all that garbage Gary Samuelson has been posting because it is impossible to hold a reasonable DISCUSSION with him. Same goes for Steven Rice, and now Kiki. PLEASE, TRY to not mis-represent your opponents' statements and views to get cheap applaudisments from your camp. I have seen you be more attentive and more reasonable.... Paul's article <1606@cbdkc1.UUCP> has been well critiqued by others, but... I said: ->>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. To which Paul responds: ->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. 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. PAUL! JUST READ THE PARAGRAPH YOU HAVE INCLUDED BELOW! ->>A fetus depends on the host (mother) only ^^^^ Which means that a fetus CAN NOT (up to a certain point in time -- 6th month?) survive WITHOUT A UNIQUE HOST. I am sure you KNOW the difference between "SOME" and "ONE AND ONLY ONE". ->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. That is not a child you are talking about, but a fetus. Wrong audience for THAT trick! If your position is that the State should have the absolude power over its subjects -- fine! Our argument is resolved. And I can hardly argue with your position -- absolute power and denial of a right to privacy and ownership of your own self justify abolishion of abortions and enforsement of gestation. ->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. State does not "SHOULD", it "DOES" because that is what the Society has been doing through out history (with a few exceptions). There are some societal norms that have evolved independent of anyone's wishes; while not unique to our society alone, compassion with individuals is very strong in Western culture and often forces our government and society to do things which are perceived as "humane". I am not about to analyse whether caring for unwanted 2-year olds is necessary or not. I will just point out that caring for a 2-year old DOES impose on society -- we support orphans via charity and a portion of our taxes. But the individual burden is slight.... A survival of a fetus depends on contributions and efforts of one and one only human being in the whole universe -- its mother. And the fetus lives off her body and her energy, INSIDE her. If a mother does not want to take care of her 2-year old, others can (and often do) take over that responciblity. The State can support and care for a 2-year old WITHOUT imposing on privacy and body of the mother. THAT IS NOT TRUE of the fetus AND YOU KNOW IT! The State CAN NOT support a 1-2-months old fetus without FORCING the mother to abandon her privacy and denying her rights to her own body. I will not discuss the logic of the rest of Paul's article -- it is not relevant to this news group. I can debate that with him in e-mail iff he wishes. Oleg Kiselev, HASA