plw@mgwess.UUCP (Pete Wilson) (08/05/85)
There seems to be a couple of arguments going on in this group
which are interrelated but separate. One of these 'discussions' is
centered on the status of a fetus.
The life cycle of a member of the species homo sapiens starts
at the fertilization of an ovum by a sperm and continues until death.
I make this conclusion based on the lack of personal knowledge of any
currently living member of said species having been 'constructed' from
'spare parts' and starting life as an adult, or teenager, or even at
any other point beyond which we refer to as 'birth'. It might be that
in years to come, medical science will progress to the point where this
is possible, and at that time, any discussions concerning 'fetuses' will
be moot.
All these arguments about a fetus not being 'alive', not a
member of the species, etc., seem to be going against current biological
knowledge concerning the life cycle of our species. The above is my
reasoning behind the belief that a fetus is alive and a member of the
human race. Arguments could be made on whether or not a fetus is a
member of a society and is entitled to the priviledges of that society.
The discussion about the 'rights' of the 'unborn' is also an
interesting one. Those who argue that a fetus has no rights seem to be
saying something to the effect that we all must pass a 'test' to be
granted the right to continue living. Once we pass this 'test' ( I
believe the current name for it is 'birth' ), those of us who have
already passed say 'OK, you made it! Now we will do whatever we can to
ensure that you may continue'. This, to me anyway, is what is meant by
'right to life' as proposed by those who say the fetus has no rights.
Those who argue that a fetus does indeed have rights are met
with arguments about those rights versus the rights of the person in whose
body the fetus is encased (for purposes of nurishment and growth). A
rather sticky wicket, this. Any attempt at resolving conflicting rights
always is extremely difficult. One inclination is to defend the fetus
because it can't defend itself and needs an advocate. But this doesn't
seem fair to the 'carrier' of the fetus. This person should be able to
follow any and all paths it has chosen without interference of a(n
unwanted) fetus. I find it very difficult, if not impossible, to choose
sides in this. Both sides seem to be equally strong in their arguments.
(An aside here - you may have noticed an attempt at neutral
sex in the above paragraph. That is probably futile, or even dumb,
because it is only the female of the species which has the ability to
'carry' a fetus. Also, any discussions concerning the definition of
'rights' and whence they come, more properly belong in net.philosophy.
An assumption is made here (probably in error) that there is a general
understanding of what is meant by a 'right'. No assumption is made about
the origin of a 'right'.)
Since I can't decide whose rights take precedence, I find I
must seek a solution elsewhere. The following statements are not argued
from a basis in absolute fact, but rather from generalizations and a
personal sense of 'rightness'.
As mentioned in the aside, it is the female of the species
which has the onus, if you will, of bearing the young of this species.
It would seem, therefore, that women would be more concerned about
getting pregnant than men. Since it is extremely doubtful that women,
in general, would want to get pregnant from every (or even ANY)
engagement in sexual activity, they would take whatever precautions are
necessary to prevent unwanted pregnancy. These precautions would include
seeing to it that their partner also, or in place of, takes similar
precautions. I am a firm believer that a woman should have a choice in
whether or not she gets pregnant and therefore have very strong feelings
against forced sex (read rape).
In conjunction with the above, I also believe that people should
be prepared for the consequences of their actions. Since it is widely
known (although not widely enough) that sex causes pregnancy, I would
think that people, women in particular, are aware that engaging in
sexual activity carries a risk of getting the woman pregnant. The state-
ment that a woman should be able to choose to have an abortion or not is
placing the choice at a point past where the choice should have been
made. Do not misconstrue that statement to mean that I am not aware
or don't believe that birth-control methods fail and unplanned pregnancies
do occur in spite of all precautions. This goes back to a willingness to
accept the consequences of one's actions - some call this responsibility
and others call it punishment.
It just seems 'right', or correct, that individuals should be
willing to accept the risks and consequences of their actions and
'wrong', or incorrect, to terminate the existance of the unborn of one's
own species. This sense of 'right' and 'wrong' is what some call
morality or ethics. As mentioned above, this morality is not arguable
from absolute fact and doesn't hold up solidly under instantiation.
Believing as I do, I cannot say that a law should be passed
making abortion illegal - that implies an absolute morality. I also
cannot agree with 'abortion on demand', or abortion as a method of
birth control. The best I can do is encourage a sense of respect for
the life of the fetus and a sense of responsibility for one's own
actions. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Pete Wilson
AT&T IS CGBS
Montgomery Works
..!ihnp4!mgnetp!mgwess!plw
P.S. Was I equivocal enough? Did I cover my ass well enough and still
manage to say something of importance?
P.P.S. The above questions are rhetorical - this is not a test.keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (08/08/85)
> > All these arguments about a fetus not being 'alive', not a > member of the species, etc., seem to be going against current biological > knowledge concerning the life cycle of our species. The above is my I think the problem we are experiencing here, is that there *may* be varying definitions of the term 'alive'. I would think no one would argue that the cells making up a fetus are *alive*. I think the issue here, is whether or not the entire fetus is *independently* alive (independent of the mother). I would think that the *aliveness* of an amoeba, a wart, an arm, a plant, a monkey, or a human being (after *birth* of course) might vary somewhat. If you decide to have your leg amputated (for good reason I hope) are you *killing* something? If so, what? I would think that some other factor, or some means of determining relative *aliveness* is required here. Perhaps sentience is involved, or experience, or??? I don't attempt to make a case either way on this one, but I do think that there's more to it than a black/white alive/not-alive type of argument. Note: I am not attempting to address whether or not the aliveness argument is even valid, just that it is not so cut and dried. > human race. Arguments could be made on whether or not a fetus is a > member of a society and is entitled to the priviledges of that society. This brings up another point. At present in our society, persons before the age of 18 are not entitled to full priviledges. Perhaps a case could be made that at an earlier age even fewer priviledges are granted. Perhaps that is exactly what we have (though not expressed in so many words) with the present abortion laws. > birth control. The best I can do is encourage a sense of respect for > the life of the fetus and a sense of responsibility for one's own > actions. The two are not mutually exclusive. > > Pete Wilson With this, I certainly agree. In addition, I am inclined to agree with a previous posters statment that women should make the decision. I would prefer though that each woman make the decision for her, rather than women in general making the decision for women in general (I think they should maintain individual choice). I think that Pete's comment about encouraging a sense of respect for the fetus etc. is the best way to minimize abortions. If the pro-life community spent more time concentrating on this point, and less time sensationalizing the issue to the point of losing much of the credibility they have, I think we would finally be making progress. > P.S. Was I equivocal enough? Did I cover my ass well enough and still > manage to say something of importance? I thought you did ok, (probably better than I did) Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (08/09/85)
Thank you, Pete Wilson! I have read this news-group from time to time, and I have often wondered if it always followed this script: Group A: "The fetus is not alive" Group B: "Yes it is!" Group A: "Well, so what? The mother has rights, too!" Group B: "Well, so what? The baby has rights, too!" It is obvious (to all except a few pro-choicers who think with their ideology instead of their mind) that fetuses are alive. It is equally obvious (to all except a few pro-lifers who think with their ideology instead of their mind) that it is sometimes necessary to kill a fetus. Most pro-choicers would agree that, in some cases, it is wrong to abort a fetus. Most pro-lifers agree that, in some cases, it is not wrong to abort a fetus. For example: - Most pro-lifers would agree with pro-choicers that it is right to have an abortion for an ectopic pregnancy. - Most pro-choicers would agree with pro-lifers that it is wrong to have an abortion at eight months if a delivery could be performed and the child (fetus, baby, whatever) saved. Please note I said "most". I know their are ideological extremists in both camps, and I already know what they'll say. (I'd like one of the extremists to surprise me, but I don't think that will happen.) The question is not, who has rights, but how are conflicting rights to be reconciled. To make things more difficult, suppose a woman has a medical condition that makes it dangerous for her to be pregnant, but she gets pregnant anyway. Unlike an ectopic pregnancy, the condition is not necessarily lethal to both her and the child. The doctor says she will most likely die; whether the baby makes it will depend on how far she gets along in her pregnancy before it kills her. Would it be wrong for her to get an abortion? Most pro-lifers would say it was okay, but we'd lose some here, since there's a chance the baby would make it. Most pro-choicers would say she's crazy if she doesn't. (This isn't a hypothetical case, by the way. It happened to a woman I knew. She decided to carry the child, and had the baby prematurely by Caesarean section. They both did fine.) Or, on the other end, suppose a woman finds is seven months pregnant when she finds out she's a last-minute admission to law school. The timing means she'd miss part of the first semester if she has the child, which would kill her chances of success. But if she declines the admission, she'll have to wait another year to start, and she isn't guaranteed that she'll be admitted to the next year's class. Would it be right for her to have an abortion? Remember, a seven-month fetus could easily survive a premature delivery. Many pro-choicers would think her abortion inadvisable (they might not like the word "wrong"). Pro-lifers would think this one wrong, period. A reasonable discussion would try to identify common ground to work from before waging war. Is it possible to have a reasonable discussion in this newsgroup? charli
tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (08/12/85)
> . . . At present in our society, persons before the age of 18 are not > entitled to full priviledges. Perhaps a case could be made that at an > earlier age even fewer priviledges are granted. Perhaps that it exactly > what we have (though not expressed in so many words) with the present > abortion laws. Presumably, the rights that teenagers, children, and infants have are being restricted for their own good. It's possible to get hurt in various ways by things like working instead of going to school, signing legal contracts that you don't understand, and having sex. So for many things, we say "you can't do this until you have reached point X in your life" -- for driving, point X is age >= 16, for signing legal contracts, it is age >= 18, and so on. Using age as the measurement of competency is bogus, but that's another topic. I don't see how killing a fetus can be construed as being for the fetus's own good. Quite the contrary. -- Thomas Newton Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (08/12/85)
> Most pro-choicers would agree that, in some cases, it is wrong to abort > a fetus. Most pro-lifers agree that, in some cases, it is not wrong to > abort a fetus. Agreed. > Or, on the other end, suppose a woman finds is seven months pregnant > when she finds out she's a last-minute admission to law school. The > timing means she'd miss part of the first semester if she has the child, > which would kill her chances of success. But if she declines the > admission, she'll have to wait another year to start, and she isn't > guaranteed that she'll be admitted to the next year's class. Would > it be right for her to have an abortion? Remember, a seven-month > fetus could easily survive a premature delivery. Many pro-choicers > would think her abortion inadvisable (they might not like the word > "wrong"). Pro-lifers would think this one wrong, period. A situation like this one, or anyone of several thousands like or unlike it, simply show that the issue of abortion is not simple, that there are tough choices to make. To my mind, and maybe I am not one of "most pro-choicers" (though I think I am,) that choices are so difficult to make is the very reason why there should be as many choices as possible. It is certainly not the business of society, through its agent the government, to try and anticipate all possible situations and prescribe the approved action. The name "pro-choice" is particularly accurate. I believe that the individual most affected should be the one to make whatever decision *she* decides is best for *her* and that *no one* has the right to question her decision, let alone to judge her for it. Marcel Simon
todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) (08/14/85)
> I don't see how killing a fetus can be construed as being for the fetus's own > good. Quite the contrary. > > -- Thomas Newton > Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice Tom, that depends on the environment the fetus, as a human, would be exposed to. -todd jones
jimi@SCIRTP.UUCP (Jim Ingram) (08/16/85)
> A reasonable discussion would try to identify common ground to work > from before waging war. Is it possible to have a reasonable discussion > in this newsgroup? > > charli From what I`ve seen of this group it would be a surprise. I`m glad to see someone try, though. Thanks. -- The views expressed by me are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other individuals or organizations. Jim Ingram {decvax, akgua, ihnp4}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!jimi SCI Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 12557, RTP, NC 27709 919 549 8334
tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (08/21/85)
>> I don't see how killing a fetus can be construed as being for the fetus's >> own good. Quite the contrary. >> >> -- Thomas Newton > Tom, that depends upon the environment the fetus, as a human, would > be exposed to. > > - todd jones First, I don't accept your implicit assumption that the fetus is not human. But addressing the main point: who are you to tell someone else whether or not their life is and will continue to be worth living? Most people who have a bad childhood do not kill themselves; doesn't this indicate anything to you? -- Thomas.Newton Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA