regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (09/30/85)
>aardvark@nmtvax.UUCP (Bill Gallagher) writes: >>If nothing has been put into the fetus, nothing comes out. >>The fetus becomes a thinking being (rather than an instinctual) >>when it is able to apply its experience and reason. Otherwise >>it's as eloquent as Fido. Experience *does* start in the womb, >>but if the fetus never gets to see the real world (ie aborted) >>it won't make any difference since it never knew it. > >Well, there are laws to protect dogs as well as humans, and I'm rather attached >to mine. He understands a small subset of English words (40 maybe) and has >real emotional depth.. I'm also attached to my cat who understand intonation, >and if someone intentionally killed her I would react quite violently.. >(perhaps even if it wasn't intentional..) I want to give the fetus more then >benefit of a doubt, I want to protect it beyond the shadow of a doubt. >Conception is obviously beyond the shadow of a doubt, 12 weeks is as well I >think. I hope this is what lawmakes had in mind when they set a limit on how >late an abortion can occur.. >Myke Reynolds Two issues here -- public policy and personal response. I happen to be 7 months pregnant. Fetus already has a name, and likes to tap dance late at night -- evidence of personality already. BUT. . . If my doctor bungled my last pre-delivery exam and slit little fetus' throat, I'd be (hopefully understandably) angry enough to be moved to violence, myself. HOWEVER, as a matter of public policy, the doctor would be guilty of something less than murder. Personally, I'd want the greatest revenge and/or punishment that the law would allow, but I couldn't string him up for "murdering" something that was still only a potential. (For instance, it could still have died in the normal course of delivery.) Many fetuses survive after 7 months gestation and pre-mature birth. Because they CAN doesn't mean that we can pass laws (public policy) on what statistically SHOULD be the outcomes, and declare it human as of that 7 months date (or any other arbitrary date). That perhaps it CAN survive outside the mother's body doesn't mean anything, unless it IS surviving outside the mother's body. It isn't a baby til it's born.
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (10/05/85)
> I happen to be 7 months pregnant. Fetus already has a name, and likes to > tap dance late at night -- evidence of personality already. BUT. . . > > If my doctor bungled my last pre-delivery exam and slit little fetus' > throat, I'd be (hopefully understandably) angry enough to be moved to > violence, myself. HOWEVER, as a matter of public policy, the doctor would > be guilty of something less than murder. Personally, I'd want the greatest > revenge and/or punishment that the law would allow, but I couldn't string > him up for "murdering" something that was still only a potential. (For > instance, it could still have died in the normal course of delivery.) > > Many fetuses survive after 7 months gestation and pre-mature birth. > Because they CAN doesn't mean that we can pass laws (public policy) on what > statistically SHOULD be the outcomes, and declare it human as of that 7 > months date (or any other arbitrary date). That perhaps it CAN survive > outside the mother's body doesn't mean anything, unless it IS surviving > outside the mother's body. It isn't a baby til it's born. You're the first person I've known of that refered to their unborn child simply as a fetus. I've heard both baby and fetus, but not just wholly refered to as fetus. For example, no one said 'hey ray, come feel fetus kicking', or 'the doctor said fetus is going to be a boy', or how about 'my look how large you are, must be a big fetus in there'. I know by definition the baby, er, the fetus is called a fetus till the fetus is born and becomes a baby, but fetus seems so technical, so medically doctrinal. Pro-choice prefer the usage of fetus while pro-life favor the word baby. In either case, the choice of the word is used exclusively for argument substant- iation. I've yet to hear the term embryo employed to describe a pregnancy by an expectant mother. Embryo is used to describe in humans the first eight weeks of gestation. "Look how she glows, women seem to glow when carrying an embryo." "I hope this embryo develops into a girl this time." When people start using terms like this, and I believe they will, you'll think your conversing with a 5th year med student. I wonder if people will someday say: 'Didn't uncle Joe look nice? I've never seen a better looking cadaver.' No flames please, just kicking around thoughts outloud. regards ray
pwk@ccice2.UUCP (Paul W. Karber) (10/09/85)
In article <739@ttidcc.UUCP> regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) writes: > >Two issues here -- public policy and personal response. > >I happen to be 7 months pregnant. Fetus already has a name, and likes to >tap dance late at night -- evidence of personality already. BUT. . . > >If my doctor bungled my last pre-delivery exam and slit little fetus' >throat, I'd be (hopefully understandably) angry enough to be moved to >violence, myself. HOWEVER, as a matter of public policy, the doctor would >be guilty of something less than murder. Personally, I'd want the greatest >revenge and/or punishment that the law would allow, but I couldn't string >him up for "murdering" something that was still only a potential. (For >instance, it could still have died in the normal course of delivery.) from another source (in other words not me :-) "The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that a viable fetus, even though stillborn, is a person under the law for the purposes of making a wrongful death claim in a malpractice suit. In a decision that the plaintiffs' attorney said would set an important precedent, the court held that "There is no logic in the premise that if a viable infant dies immediately after birth in is not a 'person' but that if it dies immediately after birth it is a 'person'." The court rejected the idea that the law would permit recovery of damages only if an injured fetus survived or died after birth." Just thought you'ld want to know what you could do. (in Arizona) >Many fetuses survive after 7 months gestation and pre-mature birth. >Because they CAN doesn't mean that we can pass laws (public policy) on what >statistically SHOULD be the outcomes, and declare it human as of that 7 >months date (or any other arbitrary date). That perhaps it CAN survive >outside the mother's body doesn't mean anything, unless it IS surviving >outside the mother's body. It isn't a baby til it's born. Maybe not but in Arizona it's a 'person'. :-) -- siesmo!rochester!ccice5!ccice2!pwk
regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (10/09/85)
>> I happen to be 7 months pregnant. Fetus already has a name, and likes to >> tap dance late at night -- evidence of personality already. BUT. . . >> >You're the first person I've known of that refered to their unborn >child simply as a fetus. I've heard both baby and fetus, but not just >wholly refered to as fetus. For example, no one said 'hey ray, come feel >fetus kicking', Not "wholly". I've heard people refer to it as "Mr. Fetus", "McFetus", "the wart", etc. in addition to "baby". (I've never said, "hey ray, come feel fetus kicking" either. Usually I say, "jezus, Jon, look what the little bugger is up to now!" (-:) I usually refer to it by it's soon-to-be- registered name, occasionally by "pet" names (such as "ralph", "sally", "little wombat" and "the vampire"), and/or "it" because I don't know what sex it will be. Will be. At 7 months, it has genitals and XY differentiation, but it still isn't born yet. Therefore, "will be". Most people ask me "When is the baby due?", which I suppose is labeling it a baby _now_, but hedges the bet by using the future tense. Course, I also know people who have given their computer terminals human names. I'm not sure that means anything. >by definition the baby, er, the fetus is called a fetus till the fetus is >born and becomes a baby, but fetus seems so technical, so medically >doctrinal. To some, I'm sure it does seem this way. To me, words is words. Some words are more accurate than others, some more emotionally charged. Thus: >Pro-choice prefer the usage of fetus while pro-life favor the word baby. >In either case, the choice of the word is used exclusively for argument >substantiation. Sometimes one pays attention to the accuracy/charge of the words, (inten- tionally or counter-intentionally) and sometimes one doesn't. > No flames please, just kicking around thoughts outloud. What you said. Adrienne Regard
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (10/09/85)
PAUL W. KARBER writes: > "The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that a > viable fetus, even though stillborn, is a person under the law > for the purposes of making a wrongful death claim in a > malpractice suit. In a decision that the plaintiffs' attorney > said would set an important precedent, the court held that > > "There is no logic in the premise that if a viable infant > dies immediately after birth in is not a 'person' but > that if it dies immediately after birth it is a 'person'." > > The court rejected the idea that the law would permit recovery > of damages only if an injured fetus survived or died after birth." > > Just thought you'ld want to know what you could do. (in Arizona) Thanks to Mr. Karber for printing this excerpt. It has always rubbed me the wrong way that although a fetus can inherit (without violating, say, the Rule Against Perpetuities), and although third parties may be held liable for damages if they injure the unborn physically or even financially, nevertheless the mother has a *privilege* (Constitutionally protected, no less) to wipe out *all* the fetus's rights with one blow. How about a case citation, Mr. Karber? ADRIENNE REGARD (quoted by Mr. Karber) writes: >Many fetuses survive after 7 months gestation and pre-mature birth. >Because they CAN doesn't mean that we can pass laws (public policy) on what >statistically SHOULD be the outcomes, and declare it human as of that 7 >months date (or any other arbitrary date). [ADRIENNE REGARD] How about the legal concept of "but-for" causation, so often applied in negligence cases, as in, "But for A running the red light, B would not have been injured."? Similarly, but for the abortionist's saline injection or dilatation & evacuation, an otherwise healthy 7-month fetus would probably be able to survive with proper care. By any reasonable theory of causation, the abortionist has caused the death of the fetus, i.e., killed it -- I don't believe the abortionist himself would deny that. That's why "viability" played such a role in the Roe v. Wade decision, and that's why it's still illegal to abort on demand during the third trimester. Still, the above quote makes a good point: Viability is only EVIDENCE of humanity, it does not CONFER humanity. It's something for legislators to take into account when they pass laws about abortion, along with their own moral values and the wishes of their constituents. And conversely, just because a two-week embryo (or one of any other arbitrary gestational age) CANNOT survive removal from the womb doesn't mean that we can declare it non-human for that reason alone. -- Matt Rosenblatt
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/12/85)
> "The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that a > viable fetus, even though stillborn, is a person under the law > for the purposes of making a wrongful death claim in a > malpractice suit. In a decision that the plaintiffs' attorney > said would set an important precedent, the court held that > > "There is no logic in the premise that if a viable infant > dies immediately after (BEFORE?) birth in is not a 'person' but > that if it dies immediately after birth it is a 'person'." I think it should be noted that right here, the point I have trying to make for six or forty odd months has been substantiated from a legal persepctive by a supreme court of one of our states of the union. Note that they used the phrase "viable fetus" and "viable infant". Clearly they are making a distinction between viable and non-viable entities. A couple of definitions of the word viable that seem most appropriate here, in case anyone doesn't have a clear idea on what "viable" means: - capable of living, esp. born alive with such form and development of organs as to be normally capable of living - capable of existence and development as AN INDEPENDENT UNIT (!!!!!!) I guess the Arizona Supreme Court must be reading my articles, since according to so many who have posted to this newsgroup, I am the only one who holds this "silly" position. The difference between viability and non-viability is crucial in determining "life"-hood, in terms of life as a human being. It's nice to see that that distinction was made in this case, since indeed it may be an important precedent, distinguishing between viable entities and non-viable entities. -- "I was walking down the street. A man came up to me and asked me what was the capital of Bolivia. I hesitated. Three sailors jumped me. The next thing I knew I was making chicken salad." "I don't believe that for a minute. Everyone knows the capital of Bolivia is La Paz." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/20/85)
> "The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that a > viable fetus, even though stillborn, is a person under the law > for the purposes of making a wrongful death claim in a > malpractice suit. In a decision that the plaintiffs' attorney > said would set an important precedent, the court held that > > "There is no logic in the premise that if a viable infant > dies immediately after (BEFORE?) birth in is not a 'person' but > that if it dies immediately after birth it is a 'person'." I think it should be noted that right here, the point I have trying to make for six or forty odd months has been substantiated from a legal persepctive by a supreme court of one of our states of the union. Note that they used the phrase "viable fetus" and "viable infant". Clearly they are making a distinction between viable and non-viable entities. A couple of definitions of the word viable that seem most appropriate here, in case anyone doesn't have a clear idea on what "viable" means: - capable of living, esp. born alive with such form and development of organs as to be normally capable of living - capable of existence and development as AN INDEPENDENT UNIT (!!!!!!) I guess the Arizona Supreme Court must be reading my articles, since according to so many who have posted to this newsgroup, I am the only one who holds this "silly" position. The difference between viability and non-viability is crucial in determining "life"-hood, in terms of life as a human being. It's nice to see that that distinction was made in this case, since indeed it may be an important precedent, distinguishing between viable entities and non-viable entities. -- Meanwhile, the Germans were engaging in their heavy cream experiments in Finland, where the results kept coming out like Swiss cheese... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr