kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (12/18/84)
[] >Warning: I am not treating this reply from Ken Montgomery very seriously. OK, I won't take you very seriously either. >}>[Paul Dubuc in <4181@cbscc.UUCP>] >}> ... >}>This requires at least a minimum amount of responsiblity on the part of >}>the parents. A mother can't just turn her 2 year old out and say "Go >}>support yourself". >} >}Why not? > >Good answer, Ken. They should put you in charge of the orphanages :-). >Am I taking you as seriously as you're taking me? I think so. OK, I'll come to you for money to support all the little kiddies... :-) > ... >Now that we've redefined human reproduction into parasitism let me ask >why the mother's body isn't the object also for the two year old? The >financial and health strains on the mother (and father too!) can be >just as great, if not greater. Unless you think two-year-olds are >self sustaining. The fact that the child cannot live on its own does not give it the right to be supported. > ... >}If you're grossed out by medical procedures, don't watch them. > >I agree, and if doctors and medical technicians get grossed out by them >they shouldn't do them. Especially abortionists. Show them all the >film! :-) Back to Liz Allen's "icky-poo" argument again! > ... >You were saying that "cats also react to pain" implying that there >is no difference between killing a cat and a fetus because of this. >What interpretation of the events *were* you proposing? I was proposing that pain per se was not a valid criterion. >}>There certainly is as much evidence that this 10 week old fetus is as >}>aware of its death as my 10 month old daugher would be. Killing one >}>is abortion, the other, murder. What's the difference? >} >}Your ten-month-old daughter is no longer a parasite. > >Thank you. I'm sure she'll be glad to hear it. I doubt she has sufficient command of a human language at 10 months to understand you if you told her. Or is she, like you, some kind of precocious super-genius? :-) > ... >}>Then why is the killing of humans outside the womb "unthinkable"? >} >}The unwanted fetus is tresspassing on its mother's property. If >}killing it is the only way to remove it when she wants it gone, >}too bad. Born humans are (normally) *not* tresspassing. > >We went through all of this by mail, Ken, and you didn't give >me and answer then. Do you want to go through it again? I did not receive a reply to the last letter I sent you. I presume that some mailer daemon ate either it or your reply. BTW, your answer is at the '>}' level above. >}>}Why does society even have a role in the decision? >}> >}>Maybe because the killing of humans isn't normally regarded as >}>permissable on an individual basis? Especially if the killing >}>is without sufficient reason (e.g. self defense). >} >}Expelling a parasite from one's body is a variety of self defense. > >So your mother gave birth to you in self defense? If she hadn't, she'd have been in quite a fix, wouldn't she? >}>[Paul Dubuc in <4182@cbscc.UUCP>] > ... >}> After that it grows on its own. >} >}No. It requires a very complicated support system: the uterus, >}plus the rest of the woman's body. Thus it is not growing "on >}its own". > >Then neither do we. We require a complicated support system called >an ecosystem. A woman is a person (and thus has the right to control her property). An ecosystem is not a person. > ... >**********End of fooling around****************(I hope)************ > >Well It's late. I think I'll deserve flames for this from everyone >execpt Ken. I have included the total of Ken's response to me in >this, my response to him. I haven't edited any of it so I haven't >taken him out of context (can't say that Ken has done the same for >me, however). I prune net articles and mail messages in an attempt to keep them from growing exponentially. If I thereby take you out of context, kindly correct me. I have slashed this posting mercilessly, and it's still rather long. > I have responed in kind with no hard feelings (Really). Same here... Except for the above comment about contexts. >It's good not to be so serious all the time, I guess. I guess... :-) >I admit my response here is mostly in jest. But I don't make a jest >out of the abortion issue. I do appreciate honest discussion on >this issue. I haven't given up on that yet. It's important. Yes. >And it is late... It's early... >Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd -- "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" Ken Montgomery ...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]