myke@gitpyr.UUCP (Myke Reynolds) (10/12/85)
>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. The law was not dealing with the fetus' rights, it was dealing with the mother's rights. Vaguely analogous to you having every right to put sledge hammer through your tv, but no one else does. Its the woman's womb, and when abortion is allowed, there is nothing there that has any more capacity for thought then a tv. I get the impression this case was more concerned with a fetus long after it is legal to abort thought. >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. right, where are 7-month abortions allowed? I'd get in line with you to picket that. >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. Non-human? A human embryo is undeniably a human embryo. This whole cats and dogs thing was originally my interjection that humanity was a unimportant qualifier. What is important is, is there SOMEONE to hurt?? I feel quite certain that my dog and my cat, and a baby 7-months after conception all have personalities. I also feel quite certain an embryo does not. -- Myke Reynolds Office of Telecommunications and Networking Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!myke Too bad all the people that know how to run this country are busy driving taxi cabs and cutting hair. -George Burns