Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rutgers!sri-spam!sri-unix!hplabs!qantel!ihnp4!cbatt!cbosgd!cbdkc1!pmd From: pmd@cbdkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) Newsgroups: talk.abortion Subject: Re: It's still mine Message-ID: <1622@cbdkc1.UUCP> Date: Mon, 6-Oct-86 13:09:45 EDT Article-I.D.: cbdkc1.1622 Posted: Mon Oct 6 13:09:45 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 10:39:09 EDT References: <5152@decwrl.DEC.COM> <1091@ogcvax.UUCP> Reply-To: pmd@dkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) Distribution: world Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Lines: 78 Some of the points David raised in his article have already been answered by me in my last response to Tom Repa so I'm not going to resond to them here. In article <1179@tekig5.UUCP> david@tekig5.UUCP (David Hayes) writes: >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. How do you define "partially developed"? You could call a two-year-old partially developed too. >>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. What is "undue", restriction? I don't think a violation of privacy is a good cover for restricting the taking of another life. Also, I don't mean to downplay the 9-month pregnancy, I just don't think it gives anyone absolute authority over another human life. I don't think it makes all the difference in that regard. >>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? I think maybe you should read the whole of someone's article before you start to respond. ... >>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. Would you say the same for other humans as well? >>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. Yes, I think it is a matter of humans having power over other humans. What is a pregnancy but a growing human within the womb? What does it mean to "terminate" a pregnancy except that we kill that fetal human? You talk about a pregnancy as if there is no fetus involved; as if it were a simple *condition* like a cold. >Pro lifers ARE NOT advocating >legislation for equal rights for all humans, they are pinpointing >pregnant women, cut and dried. Simply put, the pro-life philosophy maintians that all humans have the right not to be killed for just any reason. Society has violated that right in the case of the fetus. Yes, the fetus implies a pregnant woman. But the child she carries has as much a right to life as she. -- Paul Dubuc cbdkc1!pmd