csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/10/85)
In article <789@umcp-cs.UUCP> flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) writes: >> (a) If I don't want the baby, it must be "trespassing", and >> therefore it's OK to kill it (analogue to property rights) > (a) is valid only in rape cases. Sorry I missed your arguement in previous postings, but this seems absurd. What if the woman's (or man's) birth control fail? Does that mean she secretly wanted the fetus? >AS IT BECOMES SENTIENT (i.e. capable of an experience of any sort (sight, >touch, pain, etc.)) if it can be expected to live to be a normal adult. >("Normal" in any sense that is considered ethically relevant... This is a dangerous assertion. Sentience is still a raging philisophical debate. Consider AI: if a truly intelligent computer were built such that it could see, feel, hear and interpret these to produce responses suitable for human cognition (ie experience), then that would suggest sentient MINERAL life. Also, from your definition, almost all non-fetal animal life is sentient as well as an incredible amount of vegtable life. What you have done with your argument is clearly show the major difficulties for the "pro-choice" side. With America's wonderful "innocent until proven guilty" policy, the "pro-choice" side must conclusively show that the fetus has no legal rights (up to some time limit) in order to keep abortion legal. The "pro-life" side must merely present a reasonable doubt. This isn't difficult when the whole debate is riddled with definitions such as "sentient" and "life" that become meta-circular very easily. (Then again, all I just did was state the obvious and get nowhere.) -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack. No one knows about it." -Rev. Wang Zeep