prudence@trw-unix.UUCP (07/12/83)
Several people have issued an anti-life argument to the net recently.
The argument goes something like, "Since you oppose the pill, you must
also oppose chastity. If you feel a woman has an obligation to bring
a fetus to term, you must also feel that a woman has an obligation to
fertilize every ovum. Since the conclusion I attribute to you is
crazy, the premise I attribute to you is also crazy." Folks, this is
an example of the "Straw Man" Fallacy, that is, put words in your
opponent's mouth that no thinking man could accept and use the obvious
rejection of a canard to attack the initial argument.
If we are to be superhumanly generous to the people who have submitted
these arguments, let us answer their question, "How can you draw a
line between the fertilized ovum and an unfertilized one?" My answer
is that the fertilized one will develop into a human being if the
normal course of events is followed. Since the fetus is obviously not
yet a human being, it does not enjoy full constitutional rights any
more than a five-year-old has the right to bear arms; but since both
the child and fetus are potential adults, they both enjoy *some* rights,
the most basic of which is the right to life. By contrast, the
unfertilized ovum will be discharged in the normal course of events.
Prudence
{decvax|ucbvax}trw-unix!prudencegcsherwood@watcgl.UUCP (Geoffrey C. Sherwood) (07/13/83)
If there was EVER a straw man argument, Prudence, our heroine, used it with the "slighty" loaded term of Anti-life in regards to abortion. With the exception of a small lunatic fringe (VERY small if they are sincere about it), people are not anti-life. In fact, quite a few of us rather enjoy it at times. As always, the abortion argument centers about one (1)(I)(uno) crucial argument: Is the fetus a person. If it is, abortion is murder. QED. The only exception is the case where the mother's life is seriously threatened (e.g., fallopian pregnancy) where if the fetus is not aborted both will die. Rape is not a factor. After all, it is not the fetus's fault, and the fetus should not be punished for the crime of another. If the fetus is not a person, then the whole argument is moot. All agree that before conception an egg is not a person. Most agree that when the fetus is capable of surviving on its own it is one. The question then is when during the 6-9 month period from just prior to conception to the time the fetus is viable does the transition to personhood occur? I am not really sure myself, but my belief is that it is in the range of the beginning of brain activity (but even simple brains [rats, fish] show activity) to viability. Hence, before brain activity begins, I consider the fetus to be a potential person, but having no rights thereunto. Indeed, it is a parasite (albiet a much loved one in most cases) and can be disposed of (IF so desired) arbitrarily. But anti-life? If I kill a fly, am I anti-life? If there is some other basis for argument on abortion, I have yet to see it. fire when ready, gridley, - geoff sherwood - - U. of Waterloo -
joe@zinfandel.UUCP (07/17/83)
#R:trw-unix:-35800:zinfandel:17200007:000:425 zinfandel!joe Jul 16 09:12:00 1983 I just think that there is something imbalanced in granting rights to any "subset" of an individual that aren't wholey subserviant to the individual, regardless of what might otherwise happen. The woman is the only individual there by definition of the word, in that NO subset of her body can exist alone. Any attempts to individuate any part of her logically must be accompanied by the right to individuate it physically.