kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (01/16/85)
[] >From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) > > [Discussion of carnivorism deleted. -KJM] > >1. To kill a human being, who has not harmed or threatened to > harm another human being, is immoral and should be illegal. I agree with your principle. I do not agree that it applies to abortion. To take the resources of another without her (or his) permission is to harm her. A fetus takes its mother's resources -- directly from her body, in fact. A fetus unwanted by its mother, by definition, has no permission to take her resources. Ergo it is doing her harm, and the above principle does not apply. > Various legal terms exist to describe such killings: manslaughter > (voluntary and involuntary), murder of various degrees, > negligent homicide, perhaps others. None of which apply to abortion. (Try self-defense, though.) > I am not saying that > every harm or threat justifies lethal force in response, > but I am saying that nothing but harm or threat justifies > a lethal response. Harm has already been done by the time the unwanted pregnancy is noticed, and continues to be done as it progresses. >2. The fact that such killing is immoral and ought to be illegal > is based on the humanity of the victim, not on the consciousness > or ability to detect pain. To paraphrase T. C. Wheeler, bullbarf! The idea that such killing (note again: NOT abortion) is immoral is an *axiom*; that is, it has no basis, because it *is* a basis. > [Conclusion about animal killing deleted. -KJM] > >3. Abortion is the killing of a human being who (generally) has > not harmed or threatened to harm another human being. Wrong. See answer to point 1 above. > I am > explicitly leaving out the case where the pregnancy is endangering > the mother's life; it is not generally the case. Good; it's irrelevant, since harm to an unwilling mother occurs regardless. >To refute the above argument, you need to show either that something >other than harm or threat to harm justifies the killing of a human >being, or that pregnancy in general causes sufficient harm or >threat of harm to justify killing of a human being, I showed that harm occurs to the mother. She has the right to protect herself; to kill the one who harms her, if necessary. "Sufficency of harm" is not required to justify any particular level of force; the person being harmed has the right to use such force as required for self-defense. In this case, self- defense means preventing the fetus from further use of her body; with current technology, an abortion is the only available defense for the unwillingly pregnant woman. >or that the >fetus is not a human being. > > [Discussion of animal rights vs. human rights deleted. -KJM] > >> Why, then, are so many people saying that abortion should be outlawed >> because they don't like it? > >Another misquote. Abortion should not be outlawed because some >people don't like it; it should be outlawed because it is the >destruction of an innocent human being. The unwanted fetus is not innocent. It was not invited, nor was it given leave to use the resources of its mother's body. > > [Discussion of religion and opinions deleted. -KJM] > >Gary Samuelson >ittvax!bunker!garys -- 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]