Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!qantel!ihnp4!cbatt!cbdkc1!pmd From: pmd@cbdkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) Newsgroups: talk.abortion Subject: Re: It's still mine Message-ID: <1620@cbdkc1.UUCP> Date: Mon, 6-Oct-86 11:57:05 EDT Article-I.D.: cbdkc1.1620 Posted: Mon Oct 6 11:57:05 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 10:29:07 EDT References: <5152@decwrl.DEC.COM> <1091@ogcvax.UUCP> Reply-To: pmd@dkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Lines: 79 In article <648@houem.UUCP> marty1@houem.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes: > >>... >>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. 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. > >OK, Paul, if the same protection the state gives 2-year olds will >satisfy you as protection of the fetus, I'm satisfied too. If the >mother of a 2-year old absolutely refuses to care for a 2-year old, and >wants to give the child away, the child is taken away from her. Don't >impose on the mother's freedom. Just take the fetus away. > >We all know that if you do that the fetus will die, unless it's >advanced enough to be a premature infant. > >You conclude that since the fetus will die, we have to impose on the >mother's freedom. > >I say that we shouldn't impose on the mother's freedom, and it's no great >loss if a fetus dies. No great loss to whom? Is it any great loss if an orphaned 1-year-old dies or one with some birth defect? The problem I see with your position is that you seem to start with the assumption that "It is no great loss if a fetus dies". A lot of people can start with that judgement about anyone, not just a fetus. How do you know that anyone's death will be no great loss? Who makes anyone the judge of this over anyone else? You use "feedom" as an unqualified absolute where the mother's will over the fetus is concerned. In every other relationship, it is qualified to preclude injury and death to another individual. You and others maintian that the difference is that *only* the mother can take care of the fetus before it's born. But why does this difference make a differnce where an individual's life or death is concerned? Why does this difference make *any* desire of the woman a good enough reason to deny the unborn *every* human right? >You (or other anti-abortionists) then say they can't tell the >difference between a fetus and a child, and if you kill a fetus you'll >be killing a child next. I think this criticism stands against inconsistent criteria for "rightful human life" or critiera that allow life-or-death consquences for an individual that are not based on an individual's status as a human being, but on what other, more powerful, humans decide will be the "loss" or gain with that individuals death. Of course, we all believe we have a right to live because we are human beings except when we get to the fetus, whose existence presents a hinderance to our "freedom". To me this has all the characteristics of a powerful group of human beings invoking a double standard against the weak. Case in point: >I reply that you can tell a fetus from a child if you take it away from >its mother, give it to someone who will love it and wants to care for >it, and see whether it lives or dies. Again, wantedness is made the criterion for whether we may kill someone or respect her right to live. What if no one *wants* a child, Marty? Does it therefore have no right to live? Give the fetus a few months and it turns into a child. That makes no difference to you, because you apparently think a woman's choice over that life should be absolute. How long does it take for a child to turn back into a fetus so that we may kill it? If we find no one who wants to love and care for it after a few months is it still a fetus? >And round and round we go. >M. B. Brilliant Marty That's what I say. -- Paul Dubuc cbdkc1!pmd