johnston@spp1.UUCP (01/24/85)
The trouble with compromise on a dividing line is that is dependent on what your'e looking for. If you want a line so that you may state that anything before this line is not life, then you may pick the earliest date offerred and everyone would be satisfied. From what I hear that point would be conception. If you want a line so that you may state that everything after this line has life, you may pick the latest date offerred and everyone would be satisfied. This date would be birth by most concensus. Some have ventured later dates though. But life is a binary variable. It is true or false. Therefore any dividing line has to, by defintion, make both statements. And therefore a compromise is impossible unless the basic statements change, but then life would not, could not be the criteria. There is another statement though. How about a dividing line that preserves life when it is there (by consensus by the latest dates), is allowed to disregard anything without life (by consensus by the earliest date), and (the bomb) preserves the possibility of life when we can't be sure due to no consensus (the delta in between). Mike Johnston
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (01/26/85)
Everybody is trying to answer the "important" question; At what point does the fetus become a human being. Some say conception, some say birth, some say at some time in between. Since we don't know for sure I would like to offer a suggestion. Rather than continuing to kill "fetuses" which may or may not be "human beings", while we're waiting for all the "evidence" and the "facts" to come in, lets stop killing them while we're waiting! Is there anybody out there who would seal the casket of a person whom they were not sure was dead? In this country we are innocent until proven guilty; (good law); I propose that we should consider the "fetus" a human being until proven not! I would consider a body in the street "alive" until proven "dead", wouldn't you? Dan Boskovich (New on the Net)
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (01/26/85)
In article <252@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) writes: >I propose that we should consider the "fetus" a human >being until proven otherwise! > > Dan Boskovich > (New on the Net) After posting this I realized that some may ask, "Why should we consider the "fetus" a human being until proven otherwise, rather than visa versa??? Answer: The "fetus" at less than 10 weeks has fingers, toes, all of its "human" organs, and brain patterns. I think it is a safe assumption that there is a *good* chance that this "fetus" just might be a "human being".
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (01/27/85)
> > I propose that we should consider the "fetus" a human > being until proven not! > Ok, if I got drunk and accidently knocked you down the stairs and killed you, I could get tried for homocide. What should we do with a pregnent woman who gets drunk, trips, falls down the stairs and miscarries. If a fetus has the same status that someone who has been born has, then that woman would have to be tried for homocide. Any miscarrage whatsoever would have to be subject of a homocide investigation. Since some fairly large percentage of pregnancies do not come to term anyway, it would keep the police and courts pretty busy. What happens if a mother does not have proper pre-natal care and her child is disabled in some way? What is the difference between that and a woman who, say, gives her infant child alcohol, tabacco, and other drugs. If the child has been born, then it is obviously child abuse, what if it has not been born? It is nonsense to think that we could give a fetus the same status as someone that has already been born. The dividing line is not fuzzy at all. The logical consequences of giving fetuses the same status as the rest of us are absurd. -- scc!steiny Don Steiny - Personetics @ (408) 425-0382 109 Torrey Pine Terr. Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 ihnp4!pesnta -\ fortune!idsvax -> scc!steiny ucbvax!twg -/
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (01/28/85)
In article <342@scc.UUCP> steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) writes: >> >> I propose that we should consider the "fetus" a human >> being until proven not! >> > > Ok, if I got drunk and accidently knocked you down the stairs >and killed you, I could get tried for homocide. >What should we do with a pregnent woman who gets drunk, trips, falls >down the stairs and miscarries. If a fetus has the same status that >someone who has been born has, then that woman would have to be tried >for homocide. Any miscarrage whatsoever would have to be subject of >a homocide investigation. Since some fairly large percentage of >pregnancies do not come to term anyway, it would keep the police >and courts pretty busy. I must have been born yesterday! I didn't realize that these hypothetical situations occured so frequently prior to abortion becoming legal. I hope the authorities released all those poor girls that were serving time for miscarriages before legalized abortion. > > What happens if a mother does not have proper pre-natal care >and her child is disabled in some way? What is the difference between >that and a woman who, say, gives her infant child alcohol, tabacco, >and other drugs. If the child has been born, then it is obviously >child abuse, what if it has not been born? Maybe if we recognized the rights of an unborn, the mothers would take better care of themselves during pregnancy. It would sure lower the rate of birth defects. > It is nonsense to think that we could give a fetus >the same status as someone that has already been born. The dividing >line is not fuzzy at all. The logical consequences of giving >fetuses the same status as the rest of us are absurd. The emotionalism of this argument is what is absurd! The anti-abortionists cause is simply to stop the killing of innocent unborn babies that ARE alive and just as HUMAN as a prematurely delivered baby; not to convict a woman for falling down the stairs (obviously an accident). I hope most people can see the obvious difference between purposely killing a fetus and an accident. I am sure the laws could be adjusted to prevent such a thing. I don't know of this happening before legalized abortion, do you? I am still not so sure that smoking, drinking alcohol, or any other drug taken for no good reason but to get high or have fun, should be legal during pregnancy, but in that area I am willing to compromise. I am sure we all consider the fetus a "potential human being" at very least. This should be enough to re-evaluate our current laws which allow the killing of fetuses to the tune of 1.5 million per year of which more than 90% are NOT cases of rape, incest or endangered mother. Dan
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (01/28/85)
In article <150@spp1.UUCP> johnston@spp1.UUCP writes: >The trouble with compromise on a dividing line is that is dependent on >what your'e looking for. If you want a line so that you may state that >anything before this line is not life, then you may pick the earliest date >offerred and everyone would be satisfied. From what I hear that point >would be conception. > The problem with this is the *earliest* dividing line is actually *ovulation* not conception! The reasons for considering this the significant point are just as strong as for choosing conception, and there is *very* little difference between them. This is the basic point of my articles on the arbitrariness of dividing lines in living things. Life is *not* a binary variable, it is a contuum. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or quad1!psivax!friesen
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (01/28/85)
In article <342@scc.UUCP> steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) writes: > It is nonsense to think that we could give a fetus >the same status as someone that has already been born. The dividing >line is not fuzzy at all. The logical consequences of giving >fetuses the same status as the rest of us are absurd. > My statement about the arbitrariness of dividing lines was from a *biological* point of view, and is quite correct from that point of view. From a legal/practical point of view I agree completely, it is absurd to give an unborn fetus full human rights, just as it is absurd to give a young child full adult rights. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or quad1!psivax!friesen
plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (S. Plunkett) (01/28/85)
> In article <252@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) writes: > >I propose that we should consider the "fetus" a human > >being until proven otherwise! > > > > Dan Boskovich > > (New on the Net) > > After posting this I realized that some may ask, "Why should we consider the > "fetus" a human being until proven otherwise, rather than visa versa??? > Answer: The "fetus" at less than 10 weeks has fingers, toes, all of its > "human" organs, and brain patterns. I think it is a safe assumption that > there is a *good* chance that this "fetus" just might be a "human being". A simpler reason: Who would want to continue abortions, then later learn that you were killing people, or permitting innocents to be killed! If, after "all the evidence is in," it is determined that in fact fetuses can't possibly be human (silly!), then the ladies may begin aborting again in moral safety, with little damage having been done. Thus: Better safe than sorry. Wait for the "facts." Abortionists can go on welfare, or explore plumbing as a profession. Problem solved; disband net.abortion.
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (01/28/85)
[......] >Everybody is trying to answer the "important" question; At what point >does the fetus become a human being. No, I don't think this is the important question at all. The question I'm trying to find the answer to, is at what point does the mother have to give up her rights in favor of the foetus. Keith Doyle {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (01/30/85)
In article <382@cadovax.UUCP> keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes: >[......] >>Everybody is trying to answer the "important" question; At what point >>does the fetus become a human being. > >No, I don't think this is the important question at all. The question >I'm trying to find the answer to, is at what point does the mother >have to give up her rights in favor of the foetus. > >Keith Doyle >{ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd If the fetus is a human being, the mother has no right to terminate the pregnancy simply to remove a social inconvenience or to preserve a career, which is what abortion on demand allows. The right to live far surpasses any and all other human rights and should not be violated. So the question is still; When does a fetus become a human being? Even in the case of rape and incest, is it right to destroy a human life? If the mothers life is endanger, the cases should be evaluated individually where there are two human lives concerned. The solution should be one that takes both lives into consideration, not one over another. ALL of this hinges of course on whether or not a fetus IS a human life!
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (02/02/85)
In article <382@cadovax.UUCP> keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes: >[......] >>Everybody is trying to answer the "important" question; At what point >>does the fetus become a human being. > >No, I don't think this is the important question at all. The question >I'm trying to find the answer to, is at what point does the mother >have to give up her rights in favor of the foetus. > >Keith Doyle >{ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd But this amounts to the same thing. The mother need not give up her rights in favor of what is not human, but that which is human does have rights which should not be abridged. Look at the arguments presented by both sides. The pro-lifers argue repeatedly that a fetus is human, pro-choicers continue to deny it. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or quad1!psivax!friesen
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (02/05/85)
[.........] >In article <382@cadovax.UUCP> keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes: >>>Everybody is trying to answer the "important" question; At what point >>>does the fetus become a human being. >> >>No, I don't think this is the important question at all. The question >>I'm trying to find the answer to, is at what point does the mother >>have to give up her rights in favor of the foetus. >> >>Keith Doyle > But this amounts to the same thing. The mother need not give >up her rights in favor of what is not human, but that which is human >does have rights which should not be abridged. Look at the arguments >presented by both sides. The pro-lifers argue repeatedly that a fetus >is human, pro-choicers continue to deny it. > Sarima (Stanley Friesen) Actually, as one who has pro-choice leanings, I don't feel that the issue of the non-human-ness of a foetus argument has a leg to stand on. I think it is clear that any argument that states that a foetus 'is not human yet' at any point in time is AT LEAST not supported by any scientific evidence. If we don't even know what constitues 'human-ness' we can hardly say that a foetus of a certain age has it or not. And, as the pro-lifers would probably say, 'If in doubt, assume it's human'. What I'm trying to say here, is that there are other pro-choice arguments, and it is these other arguments where I believe the really important issues lie. I think the real argument is something more like this; When one individual (let's call it the 'dependant' or 'foetus' ) depends on another individual ( the 'dependee' or 'mother' ) for it's life support, this does not mean that the 'dependee' totally gives up her rights in lieu of the dependants needs. And in fact, the dependee may have certain rights to 'pull-the-plug' or withdraw support from the dependant. This may not mean that this may occur without restriction, but there are situations that are complicated enough that explicit legislation may not be able to effectively address. Some of the legitimate 'reasons' a mother may have of withdrawing support are: 1. Physical health of the mother 2. Emotional health of the mother 3. Age of the mother (this means too young OR too old I expect) 4. Conflicts with the mothers means of livelihood And, there may be other reasons. In fact there may also be a 'grey area' that involves mothers who are considered incapable of 'proper care'. This could be for a variety of reasons, such as: 1. Insanity 2. Mental Deficiency 3. Drug addiction 4. Hereditary defects (in the mother) And I don't mean 'proper care' once the foetus is born, but while it is still 'in utero'. A mother who is highly depressed, smokes, drinks, etc. may cause the death or disfigurement of the foetus even without an abortion. And in fact, situations like this may be likely to occur without the thought and benifit of ANY counseling on the matter that one would get while applying for legal abortion. I feel that the government cannot assume that all people are innately 'responsible' and can be expected to or coerced into providing support to other humans. And certainly it was not difficult when abortion WAS illegal for someone to obtain one anyway. And in fact this may have been the primary reason it was legalized in the first place. I'm sure we would see some of these arguments in net.euthanasia if it existed. i.e. the rights of someone to withdraw life support. Keith Doyle {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd "CHOOSE life, don't legislate it!"
dbrown@watarts.UUCP (Dave Brown) (02/19/85)
> What I'm trying to say here, is that there are other pro-choice arguments, > and it is these other arguments where I believe the really important issues > lie. > > I think the real argument is something more like this; When one individual > (let's call it the 'dependant' or 'foetus' ) depends on another individual > ( the 'dependee' or 'mother' ) for it's life support, this does not mean > that the 'dependee' totally gives up her rights in lieu of the dependants > needs. And in fact, the dependee may have certain rights to 'pull-the-plug' > or withdraw support from the dependant. This may not mean that this may > occur without restriction, but there are situations that are complicated > enough that explicit legislation may not be able to effectively address. > > Some of the legitimate 'reasons' a mother may have of withdrawing support > are: > > 1. Physical health of the mother > 2. Emotional health of the mother Here lies a problem, just what constitutes physical and emotional health? More than one person has equated emotional health with economics. > 3. Age of the mother (this means too young OR too old I expect) > 4. Conflicts with the mothers means of livelihood Once again this is a value judgement on the right of the mother against the right of the child. > > And, there may be other reasons. In fact there may also be a 'grey area' > that involves mothers who are considered incapable of 'proper care'. This > could be for a variety of reasons, such as: > > 1. Insanity > 2. Mental Deficiency > 3. Drug addiction > 4. Hereditary defects (in the mother) Why punish the potential child for the problem of the mother? The terminating of a potential life for the sake of possible defects would have halted the chances of more than one genius. Bethoven would have been never born. > > And I don't mean 'proper care' once the foetus is born, but while it is > still 'in utero'. A mother who is highly depressed, smokes, drinks, etc. > may cause the death or disfigurement of the foetus even without an abortion. > And in fact, situations like this may be likely to occur without the thought > and benifit of ANY counseling on the matter that one would get while applying > for legal abortion. On this note I hve to agree with you. The pro-life forces have been guilty of avoiding the problems of the mother. > > I feel that the government cannot assume that all people are innately > 'responsible' and can be expected to or coerced into providing support > to other humans. And certainly it was not difficult when abortion WAS illegal > for someone to obtain one anyway. And in fact this may have been the primary > reason it was legalized in the first place. I realize that we are talking about people's lives here,but, why do things that are illegal and dangerous(Back street butchers) have to be legalized? > > "CHOOSE life, don't legislate it!" Nor should one possibly legislate against it. Sincerely yours, Dave Brown
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (02/22/85)
[] dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) writes: >If the fetus is a human being, the mother has no right to terminate >the pregnancy simply to remove a social inconvenience or to preserve >a career, which is what abortion on demand allows. Why does the fetus have the right to extract support from its unwilling mother? (What does convenience have to do with it?) >The right to live far surpasses any and all other human rights and >should not be violated. I don't buy the idea of the "right to live", but only of the right to be left alone. The "right to live" includes the presumption that the means to live will be provided, somehow. How? Blank out! > So the question is still; When does a fetus >become a human being? What exactly is a "human being"? The least unreasonable definition of "human" I've heard is genetic -- a human being is an entity which posesses a full set of Homo Sapiens genes. But this definition has a major problem: the \polar body/, an "extra" full set of H. Sapiens genes which forms during fertilization. The polar body usually does not develop into a separate embryo (surprise! :~>). But the question arises: do polar bodies have the "right to life"? (Knowledgeable persons please correct me if I've misremembered the above...) BTW, If someone has a better definition of "human", please post it. >Even in the case of rape and incest, is it right to destroy a human life? Is it *ever* right to enslave anyone, even to save another person? >If the mothers life is endanger, the cases should be evaluated individually >where there are two human lives concerned. The solution should be one >that takes both lives into consideration, not one over another. In an unwanted pregnancy, someone is going to lose. The mother owns her body and did not invite the fetus to use it, so the fetus loses. >ALL of this hinges of course on whether or not a fetus IS a human life! Which is a *major* problem -- incompatible (and even contradictory) definitions of "human life" can be constructed... -- The above viewpoints are mine. They are unrelated to those of anyone else, including my cats and my employer. Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]
annab@azure.UUCP (A Beaver) (02/26/85)
>References: <150@spp1.UUCP> <252@scgvaxd.UUCP> <382@cadovax.UUCP>, <296@psivax.UUCP> <390@cadovax.UUCP> <8247@watarts.UUCP> > > > > Some of the legitimate 'reasons' a mother may have of withdrawing support > > are: > > > > 1. Physical health of the mother > > 2. Emotional health of the mother > > Here lies a problem, just what constitutes physical and emotional health? recently a friend of mine found out that she was pregnant and upon examination, though she was far enough along that you should be able to find a heart beat, the doctor could find no signs of life. The doctor said that my friend COULD wait a few weeks and see if this changed, or they could play it safe and abort it. Now, my friend has has a lot of problems the last few years. All physical and related to ovarian systs. She has been through a lot of pain and was experiencing even more with the pregnancy. My friend's husband tried to talk her into waiting, but she was far enough along that it was safer for her to not wait. The extreem pain which she was experiencing has subsided since they removed the fetus. (The thought of having to carry a dead fetus for several weeks is not too pleasent. My sister just about flipped out last year when her doctor admitted that they couldn't find HER baby's heart beat because it had died at about 8 weeks. She was over 16 weeks when they quit telling her to wait just a bit longer.) > > I realize that we are talking about people's lives here,but, > why do things that are illegal and dangerous(Back street butchers) > have to be legalized? > > Dave Brown I have been under the impression that the clinics which preform this type of operation are generally clean and help their clients to avoid any infections or problems which might possibly arise. With the clinics, the woman is recieving a PRACTICED skill and does not have to worry about the "Back street Butchers", or even unkilled doctors. Annadiana Beaver A Beaver@Tektronix "My heart should sing a happy song. My soul itself to free. I give not more than I can give. That's how life should be.