todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) (07/27/85)
I am curious as to fellow-netters thoughts on the following: If abortion is to be considered murder, the following must be objectively true: The fetus, in any or all of its stages, must be a human life, distinct from the mother. If the fetus is not a human life, distinct from the life of the mother, abortion cannot be considered murder since it then would not be the taking of a human life. Scientists, despite Jesse Helm's assertions, will never be able to prove that a fetus, in any stage, is a HUMAN life since the concept of humanness is not biologically defined. While no reasonable argument could contend that a post-birth homo-sapiens is human, endless, and unproveable, discussion about the humanity of in utero homo-sapiens will always exist. I contend the determination of the "humanity" of a fetus and its separation (as a human entity) from the mother are issues that are basically, spiritual (read religious) and therefore are not subject to governmental ruling. Each individual considering an abortion must come to grips with their own concept of fetal humanity and their decision to elect or refuse an abortion should be respected by ALL persons regardless of their personal views. ||||||| || || [ O-O ] Todd Jones \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd | ~ | |___| SCI Systems Inc. doesn't necessarily agree with Todd.
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (07/29/85)
> While no reasonable argument could contend that a post-birth > homo-sapiens is human, Huh?? > endless, and unproveable, discussion > about the humanity of in utero homo-sapiens will always exist. > I contend the determination of the "humanity" of a fetus and > its separation (as a human entity) from the mother are issues > that are basically, spiritual (read religious) and therefore > are not subject to governmental ruling. Each individual considering > an abortion must come to grips with their Don't you mean, "her"? Using "their" with a singular antecedent ("individual") is a giveaway that the writer is a feminist. > own concept of fetal > humanity and their decision to elect or refuse an abortion > should be respected by ALL persons regardless of their personal > views. (TODD JONES) "I have also said that anyone who doesn't feel sure whether we are talking about a second human life should clearly give life the benefit of the doubt. If you don't know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it. I think this consideration itself should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the unborn." (RONALD REAGAN, "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation", Nashville, Nelson, 1984, p.21) Maybe Mr. Jones lives and works in a circle where no one he knows supported Mr. Reagan, and all Mr. Jones's friends think terrible things about the President. But Mr. Reagan's statement about giving life the benefit of the doubt sounds more humane to me than Mr. Jones's statement about respecting the individual's decision to terminate the life of a being whose humanity Mr. Jones admits is "unproveable." -- Matt Rosenblatt
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (07/29/85)
I don't know, but killing people who post abortion articles to net.women is definitely justifiable homicide. :-) Seriously, net.abortion was created *specifically* to keep the abortion discussion OFF of net.women. Why? Because a lot of net.women readers wnated it that way, that's why. Let's honor that intent, OK? You people know how to use your editors, right? So go to the newsgroups line and delete net.women (and probably net.legal too) if you follow up this or the original article. And while we're at it, (for net.women readers) let's torpedo the sputtering gun-control argument as well. There's a perfectly good place for it, too (net.politics). Thank you. Jeff Winslow
ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen Eades) (07/30/85)
Regarding this posting -- PLEASE DON'T POST TO NET.WOMEN! Net.abortion was created to keep this debate from clogging up net.women. PLEASE, DO NOT POST FOLLOWUPS TO NET.WOMEN!! Thank you. Ellen Eades -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Who's been repeating all that hard stuff to you?" "I read it in a book," said Alice. - - - - - - - - - - - - - tektronix!reed!ellen OR tektronix!reed!motel6!ellen
crs@lanl.ARPA (07/30/85)
[]
Here we go again!
Come on, folks. How about moving this discussion TO NET.ABORTION,
PLEASE. It really doesn't belong in net.women (or net.legal for that
matter). Please read the newsgroup description for net.abortion.
Thank you.
--
All opinions are mine alone...
Charlie Sorsby
...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs
crs@lanl.arpahollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (07/30/85)
Please edit the Newsgroups line to place followups to this article in
net.abortion only. That's where this article belonged in the first place.
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe)
Citicorp TTI Common Sense is what tells you that a ten
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. pound weight falls ten times as fast as a
Santa Monica, CA 90405 one pound weight.
(213) 450-9111, ext. 2483
{philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombedesjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) (07/31/85)
> > are not subject to governmental ruling. Each individual considering > > an abortion must come to grips with their > > Don't you mean, "her"? Using "their" with a singular antecedent > ("individual") is a giveaway that the writer is a feminist. OH, ICKY GROSS! A FEMINIST! PTOOEY! GET OFF THE NET, WHAT ARE YOU? YOU FEMINISTS DON'T BELONG IN AMERICA! Jeez, everybody knows that men make the decisions around here. And everybody knows that that's the way it should be. Jeez! Yuck, feminists. Go on over to net.women, you icky things. :-(, in case you couldn't tell. > "I have also said that anyone who doesn't feel sure whether we are > talking about a second human life should clearly give life the > benefit of the doubt. If you don't know whether a body is alive > or dead, you would never bury it. I think this consideration itself > should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the unborn." > (RONALD REAGAN, "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation", Nashville, > Nelson, 1984, p.21) But what if I feel quite sure that it is NOT a second human life; rather, it is a part of the mother. Therefore, it may be very difficult for her to have it removed, but it is her choice. This is how I see it. Who are YOU to tell me otherwise? My opinion (for what it's worth; a lot to me, but perhaps less you) is that a woman, or anybody for that matter, cannot be forced to do something she (or he) does not want to do with her own body. So, if she doesn't want to carry a growth/fetus/whatever around, and you don't think that she should destroy it, then you must provide something for her to do with it. > Maybe Mr. Jones lives and works in a circle where no one he knows > supported Mr. Reagan, and all Mr. Jones's friends think terrible > things about the President. Yep. Me too. Hi, Mr. Jones, I'm with you! marie desjardins park
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/01/85)
Get this off of net.legal also! The content is really more
about the philosophy of abortion than the legalities thereof, so it
does *not* belong in net.legal. Perhaps a basic rule, *no*
cross-posting of anything to net.abortion and anywhere else.
P.S. Note that I have already removed net.women!
--
Sarima (Stanley Friesen)
{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesentodd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) (08/03/85)
> Come on, folks. How about moving this discussion TO NET.ABORTION, > PLEASE. It really doesn't belong in net.women (or net.legal for that > matter). Please read the newsgroup description for net.abortion. Not being familiar with the history of USENET and the reasons for the creation of net.abortion I erronously cross-posted this article originally. I apologize for the inconvenience this has caused. -todd jones
ned@SCIRTP.UUCP (Ned Robie) (08/03/85)
> My opinion (for what it's worth; a lot > to me, but perhaps less you) is that a woman, or anybody for that matter, > cannot be forced to do something she (or he) does not want to do with > her own body. So, if she doesn't want to carry a growth/fetus/whatever > around, and you don't think that she should destroy it, then you must > provide something for her to do with it. Siamese twins would disagree. :-) -- Ned Robie
pauly@zaphod.UUCP (Paul Yeager) (08/06/85)
In article <251@SCIRTP.UUCP> todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) writes: >I am curious as to fellow-netters thoughts on the following: > >If abortion is to be considered murder, >the following must be objectively true: > > The fetus, in any or all of its stages, must be > a human life, distinct from the mother. > >If the fetus is not a human life, distinct from the life of >the mother, abortion cannot be considered murder since it then >would not be the taking of a human life. > >Scientists, despite Jesse Helm's assertions, will never be able >to prove that a fetus, in any stage, is a HUMAN life since the >concept of humanness is not biologically defined. > >While no reasonable argument could contend that a post-birth >homo-sapiens is human, endless, and unproveable, discussion >about the humanity of in utero homo-sapiens will always exist. Todd, didn't you mean 'pre-birth homo sapiens'?? >Each individual considering an abortion must come to grips with their >own concept of fetal humanity and their decision to elect or refuse an >abortion should be respected by ALL persons regardless of their >personal views. This last paragraph of Todd's says all I believe needs to be said. Unfortunately, the world contains entirely too many people who think that their personal moral code is so superior to anything else, that it should be forced upon all of us. The decision to have an abortion or not is very complicated, and the considerations involved are different in most every case. The only person(s) capable of making that decision, is(are) the mother (and the father if he's around and inclined to care). I have been involved in such a decision myself, one of the hardest things I've ever done, but I wouldn't have anyone else make the decision for us. Remember that we're talking about two or three lives here, not just one. Paul Yeager {the known universe}!ihnp4!sask!zaphod!pauly "To thine own self be true, And it shall follow as the day the night, Thou cannot be false to any man." The Bard
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (08/11/85)
> In article <251@SCIRTP.UUCP> todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) writes: > > >I am curious as to fellow-netters thoughts on the following: > > > >If abortion is to be considered murder, > >the following must be objectively true: > The Bard GET THIS OUT OF NET.WOMEN!!!!!!! -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff