js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (10/11/85)
> But you cleanly place the fetus outside the category of "human being". > This is how slavery was justified. It is also the means by which > the repression of women is justified in many societies. Don't you > think this practice is a little dangerous? > Not only is this how slavery is justified, it's how killing cattle for food is justified. It is also the means by which the keeping of animal 'pets' is justified. The principle of not legally protecting things outside the category of 'human being' is quite common and not dangerous at all. The abuses mentioned above come not from applying this principle, but from using poor criteria for deciding just what is a 'human being'. While pro-lifers may quite legitimately challenge the criteria currently in vogue, it seems illogical to argue that the principle which allows us to morally kill and eat animals is too dangerous to apply. (unless you want to do it in net.veg or something) >> [suppose this poster's sister needed her kidney...] > It could be argued, I suppose, that your sister's situation had nothing > to do with any action you took or decision you made. Is that true when > you become pregnant? Unless you had been raped, it isn't. > This line of argument (that the fetus should have a right to use her body since she put it there) lacks any force whatsoever unless you assume that the fetus is a 'human being'. I can attach a leech to my body without relinquishing my right to destroy it later. You agree with this since (I presume) you believe that the leech is not a 'human being'. So while we may not agree on just what a 'human being' *is*, I hope that we can agree that things which are not human beings don't necessarily deserve protection under the law. > > Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
seshadri@t12tst.UUCP (Raghavan Seshadri) (10/21/85)
> From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) > Date: 11 Oct 85 18:00:45 GMT > Not only is this how slavery is justified, it's how killing cattle > for food is justified. It is also the means by which the keeping of > animal 'pets' is justified. The principle of not legally protecting > things outside the category of 'human being' is quite common and not > dangerous at all. > -- > Jeff Sonntag > ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j > Not dangerous to whom ? I agree that it is not dangerous to the person who kills the cattle.The animal probably does not have such a sanguine view. -- Raghu Seshadri