Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rutgers!sri-spam!nike!oliveb!trash From: trash@oliveb.UUCP (Tom Repa) Newsgroups: talk.abortion Subject: Re: Re: Independence ? Message-ID: <80@oliveb.UUCP> Date: Tue, 7-Oct-86 14:47:24 EDT Article-I.D.: oliveb.80 Posted: Tue Oct 7 14:47:24 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 10:52:34 EDT References: <1621@cbdkc1.UUCP> Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca Lines: 102 >=Paul Dubuc cbdkc1!pmd >>=Tom Repa > 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. Because the !child is feeding off the womens blood stream, her lungs and her hormones, and is putting a great strain on her entire body. Childbirth is not a trivial procedure and it should not be forced no anyone without there consent. And no, having sex is NOT giving tacit consent. Sex <> pregnancy. It is a neccessary but insufficient condition for pregnancy. This should be a basic premise aknowledged by all adults: that no one should be able to force someone to do anything with their body that they don't want done. > Can it [the state] legislate to dispose of unwanted born children, > since *only* the state can take care of them? Who said only the state can care for them? Anyone _can_ care for them. Whether or not someone wants to is another matter. So since _anyone_ can care for them, since they are physically independent lifeforms, but no one _chooses_ to care for them, the state takes on that function. As an aside, why do want all these unwanted children to be born? Don't you think that it is better in the long run for the only children to be born are those that will be wanted and loved by their parent(s)? This, to me, is a morally defensibly position. >>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?) No abortion is not chaos. "The wards of the state are in exactly the same position as the fetus"???? You mean orphan children are put inside the womb of the state? The dependence of a child on a supporting body may be complete, but the point is, _again_, that anyone, single parent, couple, private orphanage or public orphanage can can for the child. This is not the case for a small blob of replicating cells that does not have a cerebral system. Ony its mother can care for it. ( Yet. If embryonic research continues, this too may change.) > 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. Again the point must be made that the fetus, in my veiwpoint, is not yet a human being in the sense that it has not yet enough of a brain to be concious. If you want to call me a Nazi for having this viewpoint, go ahead. So the fetus is a human but not yet a human being. Therefore it gets no rights. Even if it was a human being, it does not have the right to use a womans body without her consent. We cannot allow women to become slaves to bits of embryonic matter. > 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 In regard to the Dred Scott reference, this has nothing to do with my arguments since I freely admit that once a human being is an independent entity, it is protected from arbitrary extermination. This is not the case with the fetus. Tom Repa (trash@oliven) -- Remember what the Doorknob said:"Feed your head." Path: {allegra,glacier,hplabs,ihnp4}!oliveb!oliven!trash