Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!decvax!tektronix!tekig!tekig5!david From: david@tekig5.UUCP (David Hayes) Newsgroups: talk.abortion Subject: Re: It's still mine Message-ID: <1179@tekig5.UUCP> Date: Wed, 1-Oct-86 11:45:53 EDT Article-I.D.: tekig5.1179 Posted: Wed Oct 1 11:45:53 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 08:05:20 EDT References: <5152@decwrl.DEC.COM> <1091@ogcvax.UUCP> Reply-To: david@tekig5.UUCP (David Hayes) Distribution: world Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Lines: 102 In article <1606@cbdkc1.UUCP> pmd@dkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) writes: > >No, I don't think I was missing Marty Brilliant's point. That goes >with the context of the original article. > >>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. Semantics Paul? How do you define independant? You are correct is saying a 2 year old is dependant on *SOME* adult. And yes, the means of providing this care changes with the *environment*. I just can't equate being partially developed INSIDE a woman with the 2 year olds. > >>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. > >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. This is one of the problems we are trying to resolve. You (and pro lifers) continually downplay 9 months of a womans life and childbirth. Being INSIDE a womans body means that the state cannot legislate anything without undue retriction and intervention in the womans private life. >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. How about because they can? > >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? The state is not an expecting mother, you are being facetious here right? >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. No Paul, you know darn well what was meant. We are not talking of SOMEONE, the comments are of pregnant women, so why can't you say pregnant women, instead of your generalized legalize? >So, since the state is >the "host" to these children, can the state kill them, since nobody wants >them? Geez, not this arguement again. You sound like Steve Rice, see below. > >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. Strickly your statement, I say the connection between CAN and SHOULD with regard to the protection of a fetus can only be made on the basis of where the fetus is. > 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. At least you noticed. >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. >-- Here again we are not talking the whole of humanity, just pregnant women. We are not talking humans with power over humans, it is pregnant women choosing not to continue a pregnancy. Pro lifers ARE NOT advocating legislation for equal rights for all humans, they are pinpointing pregnant women, cut and dried. > >Paul Dubuc cbdkc1!pmd dave