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: Independence ? Message-ID: <1621@cbdkc1.UUCP> Date: Mon, 6-Oct-86 12:36:08 EDT Article-I.D.: cbdkc1.1621 Posted: Mon Oct 6 12:36:08 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 10:29:24 EDT References: <1606@cbdkc1.UUCP> <49@oliveb.UUCP> Reply-To: pmd@dkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Lines: 101 In article <49@oliveb.UUCP> trash@oliveb.UUCP (Tom Repa) writes: >... 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. I don't see why the fact that only one person can (temporarily) take care of a child gives that person absolute rights over the child's life. >> 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. Can it legislate to dispose of unwanted born children, since *only* the state can take care of them? >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. Chaos? You mean having to let them die or having to kill them? Abortion is not chaos in that sense? The wards of state are in exactly the same position as the fetus. The dependence is complete whether or not it is biological or physical. (If a woman was alone on an island and found a baby washed up on its shores, alive, would she *have* to support him? Could she be held responsible for the child's death if she didn't?) >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? Show me some consistent reasoning that applies only to the fetus in making her a human with no rights, not even a right to live, and I'll agree with you. I find it hard to believe that only some humans have a right not to be killed by others. So your suggestion about offering the "safest" option of abortion makes about as much sense to me as a suggestion to offer the safest method of child abuse, bigotry, or any other violation of basic human rights to anyone who is determined to do such. > Abortion is not justified by the fetus' circumstances, >but by the women's circumstances. It's the same set of circumstances, viewed only from another prespective. >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. This was once the Supreme Court's opinion of Dred Scott. He was ruled not to be a person but to be property. He was not a U.S. citizen. Neither are blacks in South Africa. Their government doesn't recognize the rights we think they have. Who is right? Do humans have rights because they are humans or because other humans or their government say so? If the latter, then why all the fuss about South Africa's human rights violations? >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. Without the right to live, you can't talk about any other rights. Recognizing that all humans have a right to life doesn't "supercede" the rights of anyone. It does qualify them, however, and put them on an equal basis. It certainly doesn't follow that because one can't have *all* the rights of a US citizen, she can't have any rights. -- Paul Dubuc cbdkc1!pmd