Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ll-xn!nike!oliveb!trash From: trash@oliveb.UUCP (Tom Repa) Newsgroups: talk.abortion Subject: Independence ? Message-ID: <49@oliveb.UUCP> Date: Wed, 1-Oct-86 15:15:46 EDT Article-I.D.: oliveb.49 Posted: Wed Oct 1 15:15:46 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 07:37:19 EDT References: <1606@cbdkc1.UUCP> Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca Lines: 95 n.b. >> = Oleg "Kill the bastards" Kiselev > = Paul M. Dubuc >>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. > > 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. This is the most ludicrous statement I've seen in talk.abortion yet! If the fetus is a biologically independent entity, they I suggest that all women seeking an abortion should send thier feti to Paul, postpaid. (Since it is biologically independent, this would legally be the same as giving the baby up for aboption, and therefore some governmental agencies might have to get involved.) As for a two year old being "completely dependent on some adult" the point is that the two year old is dependent on _any_ adult (though I daresay it will like some more than others), whereas the fetus is dependent on its biological mother only. If you don't believe this, then I guess you DO believe that women could send you 5-week since fertilization !babies in the mail, and that you could care for them. > 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. 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? "Surely the state doesn't *want* them"??? I didn't know that states could want. People can want, and states can legislate. As to the wards of the state, they are already born, are biologically dependent on no one {Digression: You seem to be confusing biological and physical dependence. Just because a baby of n-months cannot drive to the supermarket, buy freeze-dried tofu burgers (with Nutra-sweet(tm)!) drive home and microwave those puppies to mouth- watering blandness DOESN'T mean the kid is biologically dependent. The kid is physically dependent. But then most of us (at least the non- survivalists) fall into the same catagory, though to a lesser degree. End Digression.} We require the state to take care of them because of the chaos that would result if the state did not take care of them. And the reasoning of abortion is not "if a [!]child is completely dependent on someone for survival that someone has the right to terminate the [!]child's life." The reasoning [from my perspective] is: If a person is unwilling to face the physical and emotional dangers, and long-term financial problems, of birthing and raising a child, the fact that a !baby has already been formed is insufficient reason to force her to do so. From a more pragmatic viewpoint, women have always managed to have abortions, either invasively or chemically stimulated. Shouldn't we allow them the safest option? > > 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 See above. Abortion is not justified by the fetus' circumstances, but by the women's circumstances. The fetus is, is the opinion of some subset of the population of the United State, not yet a PERSON, and therefore not entitely to the full rights and responsibilities provided to and required of adult citizens of the U.S. Even arguing that it is, which is an arguable premise by itself, you then are in the non-enviable position of showing why it is a person, what rights it should be provided, (since it cannot have all the an adult has), and , most importantly, WHY it's rights supercede those of the woman. I realize you are trying to do this, but you haven't convinced me yet. But keep trying. If I was really closeminded, I wouldn't be reading this group! Sorry 'bout the length and the run-on sentences, Shakespeare I'm not. Tom Repa (trash@oliven) -- WATCH OUT! You might get what you're after. - T. Heads Path: {allegra,glacier,hplabs,ihnp4}!oliveb!oliven!trash