liz@tove.UUCP (Liz Allen) (11/24/84)
Below is a narrative of the first known video sonogram of a suction abortion of a ten-week-old unborn child. The documentary was presented by Dr Bernard Nathenson at the 1984 National Right To Life Convention held in Kansas City and is narrated by Gary Bergel. I have not seen the documentary (I'm not sure that I want to...). ------------ The film began as we watched the living, delicately formed and minutely detailed ten-week-old human being enjoying the comfort and security of its mother's womb. He rested, cradled and comforted in his "inner-space-capsule," stretched and performed graceful exercises, easily found his mouth and sucked his thumb. Then, his sanctuary had seige laid to it by an invading suction curette -- a plastic vacuum cleaner-type instrument, just a bit larger than a ball-point pen. For many minutes the abortionist thrust the curette through the cervix, gateway to the womb, and violently tried to break the amniotic sac, the "bag of waters" which harbored the little one. We could see that the small boy instinctively knew that he was under attack. With each thrust he would quickly react and retreat to the farthest "corner" of the womb, trying to keep the maximum distance between himself and the invading instrument of death. After each attempt, he would lie on his back and suck his thumb. His tiny heart beat frantically, sometimes at more than 220 beats per minute. Finally the suction curette pierced the amnionic sac. In an instant the waters were gone and the instrument was sucking the child's body apart. The child's face turned toward us, then turned upward while the tiny body arched in agony, the boy's mouth opened and seemed to utter an anguished, silent scream. His limbs were ripped off and then a part of his spine disappeared. His heart began to slow and then stopped. We watched him die. Quickly the dismembered remains were suctioned out, all but his head. It was too large to pass through the vacuum tubes. A pliers-type forceps, with locking ratchet teeth, was inserted. The skilled abortionist "hunted down number one," as the head-removing procedure is euphemistically termed by abortionists, and crushed it. The pieces flew through the tubes. A life was sucked away. The womb contracted and closed. He was gone. There are three things from this awful film I will never forget: the agonized, silent scream; the child dying; the horrible sound of the ratchet teeth as his head was crushed. ------------ There are a few things in this narrative that I want you to notice -- partly because people are in the habit of posting things contradicting these things... 1. The child is well formed -- not at all a "blob" or just tissue. And, at ten weeks, this is not an "older" abortion; some abortions are performed earlier, but most are performed at 10 weeks or later. 2. The child is animated -- he doesn't just sleep unaware of anything but seems quite active. 3. The child is aware of the attack -- he moves away from the instrument and as far away as possible. 4. The child reacts to pain and seems aware of his death -- the silent scream... I didn't post this to be gross or emotional -- even though this narrative is both these things. I posted it because if there was a window to the womb, abortion would be as unthinkable as murder. I think it says a lot (negative) about our society that at a time in which we know so much more about fetal development than ever before, we still don't consider abortion unequivocally wrong... -- -Liz Allen Univ of Maryland, College Park MD Usenet: ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz Arpanet: liz@tove (or liz@maryland) "This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all" -- 1 John 1:5
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (11/25/84)
[] >[Liz Allen] > > [Emotional appeal deleted...] > >There are a few things in this narrative that I want you to notice >-- partly because people are in the habit of posting things >contradicting these things... > >1. The child is well formed -- not at all a "blob" or just tissue. >And, at ten weeks, this is not an "older" abortion; some abortions >are performed earlier, but most are performed at 10 weeks or later. The degree of development of the child is irrelevant. Why does an unborn child (or any child) have the right to have its life supported by its mother? Why does it even have the right to remain inside her body against her will? By what principle? Why is this principle valid? >2. The child is animated -- he doesn't just sleep unaware of >anything but seems quite active. So what? >3. The child is aware of the attack -- he moves away from the >instrument and as far away as possible. Or was he merely pushed away by it? >4. The child reacts to pain and seems aware of his death -- the >silent scream... Cats also react to pain. However, the evidence given in no way shows that the child "seems aware of his death". How can you tell what is going on in the child's brain, such of it as there is at 10 weeks? >I didn't post this to be gross or emotional -- even though this >narrative is both these things. I posted it because if there was >a window to the womb, abortion would be as unthinkable as murder. Why would abortion necessarily be unthinkable? I don't see any causal link here. >I think it says a lot (negative) about our society that at a time >in which we know so much more about fetal development than ever >before, we still don't consider abortion unequivocally wrong... Why does society even have a role in the decision? Tell me, Ms. Allen, are you willing to carry any and all children that you might conceive? Either way, why do you think you have the right to force other women to carry unwanted children? >-- > -Liz Allen -- "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" Ken Montgomery ...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]
brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson) (11/25/84)
Liz Allen quotes a soundtrack from a video of an abortion.
The abortion is icky-poo. Whether it is icky-poo or not
is not the key issue, and has no relevance to whether
abortion should be allowed or not. It is allowable to
vomit, kill prey, and to go potty. All icky.
Yet, nobody tries to ban them.
Liz Allen numbers 4 characteristics of that
10 week old fetus. A random lizard has them, too.
The difference between killing a 10 week old embryo
and the random lizard is that one of them is of
the same species as us. It is hard-wired in
to us to favour cute little pink things which
resemble humans. This is the level of emotion,
of animal feelings, not reason. It is for ensuring
survival of the species. I think we are now at the
point where quality is more important than quantity,
however. (4.5 billion, or was it 4.7?)
Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianp
^ ^twiss@stolaf.UUCP (Thomas S. Twiss) (11/25/84)
This "story" was outageously sensationalistic. I am not denying
that it was very disturbing, but to posit the intelligence and cognition
of a ten week old fetus is really stretching it. This was a blatant
attempt to emotionalize the whole thing and ignore any facts that may be
pertinent. This method of indoctrination is very indicative of most
conservative (i.e. Ronnie) methods of advertising, informing, etc. Please
note: I am NOT saying that this was not a very disturbing story. In fact
no pro-choicer (of which I am one) can convince me that pro-lifers don't
have some serious and legitimate concerns. But NIETHER can ANYONE
convince me that this emotionalistic attempt at illegitimate personification
has ANY bearing on EITHER side of the argument. Leave this narrative
for the uneducated who can only respond emotionally rather than rationally.
--
Tom Twiss @ St. Olaf College
{decvax,ihnp4}!stolaf!twiss
"If the Paradox and the Reason come together in a mutual understanding
of their unlikeliness their encounter will be happy..."
-Soren Kierkegaardsaquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (11/26/84)
> This "story" was outageously sensationalistic. I am not denying >that it was very disturbing, but to posit the intelligence and cognition >of a ten week old fetus is really stretching it. This was a blatant >attempt to emotionalize the whole thing and ignore any facts that may be >pertinent. This method of indoctrination is very indicative of most >conservative (i.e. Ronnie) methods of advertising, informing, etc. Please >note: I am NOT saying that this was not a very disturbing story. In fact >no pro-choicer (of which I am one) can convince me that pro-lifers don't >have some serious and legitimate concerns. But NIETHER can ANYONE >convince me that this emotionalistic attempt at illegitimate personification >has ANY bearing on EITHER side of the argument. Leave this narrative >for the uneducated who can only respond emotionally rather than rationally. > >Tom Twiss @ St. Olaf College Although I am pro-choice myself, I do take exception to the attitude above. Please tell me what is wrong with involving emotions in discussions. Where is the rule saying a position is invalid because it is based on emotions? why pretend that abortion is NOT an emotional issue when it so obviously is, since motherhood (parenting) love, life and death are emotional issues. Do people love each other for rational reasons? Do people make love to each other for rational reasons? Do people choose to have children for rational reasons? Do people choose not to have children for rational reasons? Do people grieve when someone dies for rational reasons? Are people happy when someone is born for rational reasons? Face it, the world is here today because of emotions and may blow up any minute both for emotional reasons and because of a lack or emotions (the emotion present being fear and the emotion missing love of other people). So emotions are a force to be reckoned with. Trying to ignore them will not help resolve problems, it will just push them under the surface and people will fabricate rational justifications for them which will never hold as much as the emotions themselves did. As far as abortion is considered, there are emotional arguments to both sides of the issue, and we cannot ignore them. However their interactions are so complex and their implications so far-reaching that I am afraid it is impossible to choose one as being the only important one, and this is why I am pro-choice. Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (11/26/84)
}>[Liz Allen] }> }>There are a few things in this narrative that I want you to notice }>-- partly because people are in the habit of posting things }>contradicting these things... }> }>1. The child is well formed -- not at all a "blob" or just tissue. }>And, at ten weeks, this is not an "older" abortion; some abortions }>are performed earlier, but most are performed at 10 weeks or later. } }[Ken Montgomery] }The degree of development of the child is irrelevant. Why does an }unborn child (or any child) have the right to have its life supported }by its mother? Why does it even have the right to remain inside her }body against her will? By what principle? Why is this principle valid? Perhaps you should explain why the principle is invalid. Our court system recognizes a child's right to life that requires *someone* to support it. 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". So either she supports the child, someone adopts him, or we support him with taxes. But no one makes the child support himself because he can't. If you say the degree of development is irrelevant, are you saying that there is no legal rights distinction between a 10 week old fetus and a 2 year old child? (You did say "any child"). If there is no difference, where and when do you get your rights as an adult? }>2. The child is animated -- he doesn't just sleep unaware of }>anything but seems quite active. } }So what? So he is a lot more similar to you and I than we have been led to believe. }>3. The child is aware of the attack -- he moves away from the }>instrument and as far away as possible. } }Or was he merely pushed away by it? Why don't you see for yourself? I recently read Nathanson's own comments about the film. It wasn't just pushed. It intentionally moved away. But you'd say this makes no difference, right? But apparently you would rather believe there is a difference? Why? Nathanson tells of the reactions of two other people who were involved in making the film. The abortionist (a friend of Nathanson's) was absolutely mortified after seeing it on the monitor. He no longer does abortions. The woman whom Nathanson needed to interpret the sonogram was also deeply disturbed. She could hardly go through with the production of the film. Certainly if there was any other way to rationalize the child's moving away from an attack (as Ken is doing here), the abortionist would have done so. }>4. The child reacts to pain and seems aware of his death -- the }>silent scream... } }Cats also react to pain. However, the evidence given in no way shows }that the child "seems aware of his death". How can you tell what is }going on in the child's brain, such of it as there is at 10 weeks? But we're not talking about cats, are we? How does anyone know what's going on in any human's brain when you are trying to kill them. Is it acceptable to kill a mentally retarded individual? How about you or I when we are asleep? If you are going to maintain that the degree of awareness of death (i.e. at the point of death) is a criteria for killing a human, what logical difference is there between these cases? 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? It would be at least a step in the right direction if the fetus had at least as much protection as the neighborhood cat. }>I didn't post this to be gross or emotional -- even though this }>narrative is both these things. I posted it because if there was }>a window to the womb, abortion would be as unthinkable as murder. } }Why would abortion necessarily be unthinkable? I don't see any }causal link here. Then why is the killing of humans outside the womb "unthinkable"? }>I think it says a lot (negative) about our society that at a time }>in which we know so much more about fetal development than ever }>before, we still don't consider abortion unequivocally wrong... } }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). I don't think we can personify "society" so far as to say that it makes decisions, but it can be generally ignorant of facts. I think that the answer to Liz' statement here is that the facts concerning fetal development and their implications for the abortion issue are not common knowledge. Nathanson's film is very recent and is the first of its kind to be made generally available. Maybe as more people see it, things will begin to change. }Tell me, Ms. Allen, are you willing to carry any and all children }that you might conceive? Either way, why do you think you have }the right to force other women to carry unwanted children? Why would Liz have to carry them? I don't see the causual link here. }[Brian Peterson] }Liz Allen quotes a soundtrack from a video of an abortion. }The abortion is icky-poo. Whether it is icky-poo or not }is not the key issue, and has no relevance to whether }abortion should be allowed or not. It is allowable to }vomit, kill prey, and to go potty. All icky. }Yet, nobody tries to ban them. Do you think "icky-poo" is the the reason people are against abortion? Should we assume that people are only against killing born humans because it's "icky-poo" and argue that we should be legally able to kill them too? }Liz Allen numbers 4 characteristics of that }10 week old fetus. A random lizard has them, too. }The difference between killing a 10 week old embryo }and the random lizard is that one of them is of }the same species as us. It is hard-wired in }to us to favour cute little pink things which }resemble humans. This is the level of emotion, }of animal feelings, not reason. It is for ensuring }survival of the species. I think we are now at the }point where quality is more important than quantity, }however. (4.5 billion, or was it 4.7?) Who's going to set the quality standards? I think it's ridiculous to infer that the practice of abortion on demand represents a quality judgement of the fetus. But I think Brian is talking more about the "quality" of life of those allowing the abortions. And "quality" is a blank check where abortion on demand is concerned. We can put anything we like there, or nothing at all, and it is enough justification for killing the fetus. Your use of the term "quality" is meaningless, Brian. Perhaps you could also explain why laws agianst killing you and I are more at the level of reason than emotion (and maybe why things at the level of emotion are irrelevant). If we no longer need to insure species survival, why not be random in our killing instead of singling out that class of humans that are still in the womb? For once I'd like to see you explain these things without invoking the "rational" of that non-culpable, non-person, called "society". -- The unaborted, Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
z@rocksvax.UUCP (11/28/84)
/***** rocksvax:net.abortion / stolaf!twiss / 3:49 pm Nov 25, 1984*/
But NIETHER can ANYONE
convince me that this emotionalistic attempt at illegitimate personification
has ANY bearing on EITHER side of the argument. Leave this narrative
for the uneducated who can only respond emotionally rather than rationally.
--
Tom Twiss @ St. Olaf College
/* ---------- */
I think Tom missed the point of the article. The story simply
pointed out that a 10 week-old fetus looks remarkably like a human
and the point of an abortion is to destroy the fetus. You get
what you pay for. I don't understand why the story was disturbing at all. If
you didn't believe the fetus was 'human' then what do you care if it
is suffering?
If you didn't believe the fetus was 'anything like you' then
the only emotion expressed in the narrative was the comment by
the abortionist about looking for number one. There wasn't anything
illegal about the article. Certainly talking about a human(the fetus) as
a person (personification) isn't illegal.
I think that saying the narrative was aimed for the uneducated
could be phrased a little better. I know I didn't know what a 10 week
old fetus looked like and I didn't know the mechanics of an abortion.
I've completed my B.S. in Engineering but I hope no one blames me for
not knowing how to perform an abortion. I just as well may have believed
some of the articles which refer to a fetus being like a gelatinous cube.
//Z\\
James M. Ziobro
Ziobro.Henr@Xerox.ARPA
{rochester,amd,sunybcs,allegra}!rocksvax!zliz@tove.UUCP (Liz Allen) (11/28/84)
In article <1092@ut-ngp.UUCP> kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) writes: >The degree of development of the child is irrelevant. It probably is irrelevant to you, but the humanity of the unborn child is an important issue for many and one way to measure that is by how well formed it is. I have talked to women considering getting an abortion to whom this fact was both relevant and suprising -- our media has not been very fair in presenting this side of the issue. Women considering whether or not to get an abortion usually speak about whether or not they "will have a baby". They don't seem to realize that they already have one... > Why does an >unborn child (or any child) have the right to have its life supported >by its mother? Why does it even have the right to remain inside her >body against her will? By what principle? Why is this principle valid? Its right to remain in the mother's body against the mother's will is dependant on whether or not its life is valued more than mother's inconvenience to carry the baby to term. >> = Liz Allen >>2. The child is animated -- he doesn't just sleep unaware of >>anything but seems quite active. > >So what? It is relevant if you are trying to determine the humanity of the child. >>3. The child is aware of the attack -- he moves away from the >>instrument and as far away as possible. > >Or was he merely pushed away by it? No, the amnionic sac broke as soon as the instrument made contact with it. >>4. The child reacts to pain and seems aware of his death -- the >>silent scream... > >Cats also react to pain. However, the evidence given in no way shows >that the child "seems aware of his death". How can you tell what is >going on in the child's brain, such of it as there is at 10 weeks? That's why I said "seems". Though I think if you saw an adult react the same way, you'd think that they were aware of their death... I would also like to point out that here you do think the development of the child's brain is relevant and the actions of the child throughout the narrative would indicate a fairly high amount of brain activity (relative to the typical picture of next to none which is argued by the pro-choice side). >>I didn't post this to be gross or emotional -- even though this >>narrative is both these things. I posted it because if there was >>a window to the womb, abortion would be as unthinkable as murder. > >Why would abortion necessarily be unthinkable? I don't see any >causal link here. If it causes you to grant a high degree of humanity to the unborn and if you value humanity, then abortion does become unthinkable. >>I think it says a lot (negative) about our society that at a time >>in which we know so much more about fetal development than ever >>before, we still don't consider abortion unequivocally wrong... > >Why does society even have a role in the decision? Because if society decides it has a vested interest in its unborn (as it has decided for the born), then it may decide that that the unborn's life is more important than the woman's resultant inconvenience and make abortion illegal. >Tell me, Ms. Allen, are you willing to carry any and all children >that you might conceive? Yes, I am willing to carry any and all children I might conceive. > Either way, why do you think you have >the right to force other women to carry unwanted children? I'm not sure that I have the right, but I do believe society does. I don't mean that society doesn't have any responsibilities towards the woman, but I do believe it has a responsibility to protect the life of the unborn. The reasons a woman may want to get an abortion are many and varied. From the women I've talked to, most would rather carry the baby to term (given that they are now pregnant) or would definitely carry to term if the pregnancy had occurred at some other more convenient time. However, they find some of the circumstances of their life such that carrying to full term seems too hard. I think that our society would be much better off helping the women solve their problems and carry the baby than to provide the "easy" solution of abortion. I also think that option of adoption is rejected too quickly. I know that it is difficult to give up a baby for adoption, but in the long run it could well be a better solution both for the woman and the child in the cases where the woman knows she is not ready to take on the responsibility of raising a child. Providing alternatives to abortion requires more commitment and more love, but isn't it worth it? (I know, I know, this is an emotional appeal... but isn't it better to support life than to kill it???) Some of you who weren't on the net way back before net.abortion was even created won't know how it is I know as much as I do about why women consider abortion, so I'll explain that. I worked in a crisis pregnancy center near my home (in the Maryland suburbs of Washington DC) running pregnancy tests and counseling women for about a year and a half. During that time, I talked to a lot of women who were considering getting an abortion -- their reasons and their situations. Gerald Owens is right, by the way, in saying that the pro-life movement is waking up to providing help to women in crisis due to pregnancy. I work on a coalition for Pregnancy Assistance which will be placing women in the private homes of people willing to open their homes in order to help a woman. This is very important to me because merely telling a woman that she should not get an abortion is *not* enough! -- -Liz Allen Univ of Maryland, College Park MD Usenet: ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz Arpanet: liz@tove (or liz@maryland) "This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all" -- 1 John 1:5
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (11/28/84)
Thank you Sophie. Your response to the emotional outburst of the author was just right. You hit the proverbial nail on the head. T. C. Wheeler
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (11/28/84)
I'm appalled that Liz copied that shocking abortion narrative in here. This is a classical fallacy of the worst sort: appeal to the prejudices of the audience. I'm sure I could use those same knee-jerk responses to mutillation and the like to turn you all into vegetarians. (And probably also make you reluctant to eat even plants! :-)) And the incredible errors of anthropomorphism committed to shock us also infuriate me. Such fanciful interpretations. I'm sure they'd also interpret the slack-jawed gape of a brain-dead adult as a "silent scream" also, if it suited their purposes. "Retreating to the far end of the womb" my ass. If the fetus had happend to get sucked up immediately it would instead have been "helplessly sucked towards doom and destruction." And let's not forget that there might have been editing: selection from many films of abortions of whichever parts (or whole) made for the most grisly description. I say errors of anthropomorphism because it obviously is erroneous to ascribe adult human feelings and reactions to a fetus, the same way it is erroneous to ascribe lust to that fetus. A fetus at that stage is indistinguishable from a whole range of things we would routinely classify as subhuman: an ape fetus, a fetus without a brain, or a fetus with a defect that will cause it to abort itself spontaneously. Finally, the film doesn't argue against abortions, as it may have been mis-represented to do. It argues against "inhumane abortions". Just as many people consider it inhumane to kill animals in gruesome ways, but humane to kill them with an injection, so that film AT MOST is an argument to abort in a more "humane" manner. I have no objection to that, providing the "humane" method is no more risky to the woman. But anti-abortionists want to misinterpret this: it gives them a feeling that theirs is a righteous cause. They need that feeling to justify oppressing other adults with their beliefs. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (11/28/84)
[] >[Liz Allen] >Its right to remain in the mother's body against the mother's will is >dependant on whether or not its life is valued more than mother's >inconvenience to carry the baby to term. Valued by whom? Anyway, why does the alleged "value" of a fetus override the woman's right to control her property (her body)? >I would also like to point out that here you do think the development >of the child's brain is relevant and the actions of the child throughout >the narrative would indicate a fairly high amount of brain activity >(relative to the typical picture of next to none which is argued by >the pro-choice side). Why does the alleged brain activity of the fetus give it the right to use the woman's body? >If it causes you to grant a high degree of humanity to the unborn >and if you value humanity, then abortion does become unthinkable. "Value humanity"? What does this phrase mean? Are you saying that there is some way in which random people are valuable to me? Can I trade this value for a microcomputer? :-) >Because if society decides it has a vested interest in its unborn (as >it has decided for the born), then it may decide that that the >unborn's life is more important than the woman's resultant >inconvenience and make abortion illegal. *Society* does not decide anything. *People* decide things. *Society* is only a (sometimes) convenient figment of our imaginations. No person has the right to take over the body of another, even to prevent death (or promote life). >I'm not sure that I have the right, but I do believe society does. I >don't mean that society doesn't have any responsibilities towards the >woman, but I do believe it has a responsibility to protect the life of >the unborn. Society is not a person; thus it cannot have rights or responsibilities. > ... From the women I've talked to, most would rather carry the baby to >term (given that they are now pregnant) or would definitely carry to >term if the pregnancy had occurred at some other more convenient time. This is the exact opposite of what the women I have talked to said. > ... I think that our society would >be much better off helping the women solve their problems and carry >the baby than to provide the "easy" solution of abortion. So you want me (through tax money, I suppose) to pay for other people's children? Why should I? > I also >think that option of adoption is rejected too quickly. I know that it >is difficult to give up a baby for adoption, but in the long run it >could well be a better solution both for the woman and the child in >the cases where the woman knows she is not ready to take on the >responsibility of raising a child. How about not giving birth to the child in the first place? >Providing alternatives to abortion requires more commitment and more >love, but isn't it worth it? No. Why do you think it is? > (I know, I know, this is an emotional >appeal... but isn't it better to support life than to kill it???) Not at the expense of enslaving women! > -Liz Allen -- "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" Ken Montgomery ...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]
owens@gitpyr.UUCP (Gerald Owens) (11/29/84)
Thanks, liz, for confirming the existence of that
videotape that I had heard only rumors about. It was about
time somebody used modern technology to lay to rest some of the
preconceived notions of what goes on in the womb that early.
I hope soon that somebody will couple the sound picture with an
encephalogram (sp?) of the unborn child's brainwaves to decisively
lay to rest the question of fetal pain (although if a fetus tries to
scream in amniotic fluid and isn't heard, and someone then asserts
that the fetus doesn't feel pain, then I guess we know where they stand
on the old question of the tree falling in the forest with nobody to
hear it.)
However, what facinates me are the mental and verbal gyrations
of the pro-choice netters. If it wasn't so tragic, I would have requested
that the postings be moved to net.jokes. The complaint about the
sensationalism of the posting (and indirectly, of the videotape that
it was a report of), was conveniently absent during the vietnam years,
when the faithful media brought the war to the 6 o'clock news. My suspicion
is that they know what would happen if actual abortions were given equal
time with dead and dying GIs.
Ok, pro-lifers. What now? If one wishes to compare the
abortion debate to a war (which is not too far off from the truth), then
we've got an H-bomb on our hands. Unfortunately, I'm a pessimist on
it's utility. A Nuke is no good if it can't be delivered to it's
target, and rest assured that the liberal media will show it right after
their report that it is snowing in hell. It may do some good being shown
in some pro-life vans accompanying the picketing of abortion clinics, and
it may get some churches off the fence. A national showing? Outside of
cable TV, forget it. I admire Reagan, but if he has the guts to call
a special news conference and can get the liberal-media to show it in
its entirety, in prime time, then he will rank with Lincoln and Washington
for sheer courage. Short of that, the next best thing will have to be
a small booklet showing excerpts from the tape.
We should, of course, consider ALL the consequences of showing this
tape. Recent discussions about a certain famine in Ethiopia, and how
the children should be "taken care of", should alert us to the fact
that the more successfully we present our case, the more we force SOME
of our opponents to adhere more logically to their own arguments. Especially
when they haven't come up with a blockbuster of an argument like this
videotape (Otherwise, they would have used it a long time ago). Remember,
Shaeffer argued that a bad attitude toward the fetus, the weakest of humans,
will develop into a bad attitude toward the weak. Should we accelerate
the development of this bad attitude? Another worrisome problem is that
of the more violent of our following (there, I've said it!). These
guys are not strictly pro-life, but pro-innocent-life. The distinction is
crucial, since they distinguish between a murderer and one who kills
in self defense. They then proceed to act on behalf of the ones who
would normally defend themselves, but are unable to do so for
various reasons. Some of these guys have blown up a few abortion
clinics and Planned Parenthood clinics. If this tape is shown, and
nothing gets done, then the situation is going to get very unpleasant,
very quickly. It's one thing to BELIEVE that you are fighting for an
innocent human life. It's another thing to SEE the poor kid fighting for
it's life and losing, getting torn apart by a method which, if used on
animals would call down the wrath of the ASPCA, the Sierra Club, Greenpeace,
and only Watt knows who else.
This is getting long enough. Flames will be answered in direct
proportion to their rationality, and inversely proportional to the
amount of emotional heat they contain.
Gerald Owens
--
Gerald Owens
Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!owenskeithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (11/29/84)
[] >Because if society decides it has a vested interest in its unborn (as >it has decided for the born), then it may decide that that the >unborn's life is more important than the woman's resultant >inconvenience and make abortion illegal. > -Liz Allen Perhaps we should be careful in underestimating the effect of this 'inconvenience' on many people. Career women, and in particular those in the acting or modeling profession may find this 'inconvenience' jeopardizes their job, as the 'cut-throat' nature of some of these jobs may require 100% dedication in order to achieve success. Certainly there are instances of women in such positions that do become pregnant and have babies, but many of these may already achieved a degree of success that tends to 'secure' their job positions somewhat such that they can afford this 'luxury'. Also certainly, it may very well be unwise to allow yourself to get pregnant if you are one of these career women, I'm sure we all know about the best laid plans of mice & people. Certain job positions in this world are 'high interest'. Many people find these jobs so highly desirable, that there is a 'glut' of prospective employees. Employers in this situation may find that the least little 'inconvenience' grounds for rejection or replacement. Even in the computer industry positions of this type exist, in particular, Computer Graphics, and Computer Games. Almost ALL non-managerial positions (and maybe some of the managerial ones too) in the MEDIA, (T.V., Movies, Record industry, etc.) tend to fall into this category. To People determined to 'break in' to these industries, pressure to succeed is high, while instances of actual success is low. Some people might even view their success/failure in these areas as 'life or death'. For many of these people, legislation of anti-abortion laws may constitute a mere 'inconvenience', as they will arrange to have 'illegal' abortions anyway. In my estimation, the answer is 'education' to insure that abortion is not used as a 'casual' solution, and certainly 'gut-level' films such as the abortion docuentary recently described can be helpful in this area. Legislation has a tendency to be largely ineffective, and serves to promote unsafe 'black-market' situations of which we have no shortage already. Keith Doyle {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd "You'll PAY to know what you REALLY think!"
liz@tove.UUCP (Liz Allen) (11/30/84)
>> = Liz Allen > = Ken Montgomery >>Its right to remain in the mother's body against the mother's will is >>dependant on whether or not its life is valued more than mother's >>inconvenience to carry the baby to term. > >Valued by whom? Anyway, why does the alleged "value" of a fetus >override the woman's right to control her property (her body)? Valued by society or the state in that the values of a society (especially one like ours) are realized by the laws. As has been said at least a few times before, there are two rights involved here: (1) the right of the fetus to live and (2) the right of the woman to control her own body. The right the fetus has to live is related to the value we place on its life and that value has to with our view of the fetus. If we view it as a human being with the accompanying rights, then its right to live is much greater than the right of the woman to control her body. >Why does the alleged brain activity of the fetus give it the right >to use the woman's body? See the above... >>If it causes you to grant a high degree of humanity to the unborn >>and if you value humanity, then abortion does become unthinkable. > >"Value humanity"? What does this phrase mean? Are you saying >that there is some way in which random people are valuable to >me? Can I trade this value for a microcomputer? :-) I *thought* our society had some regard for the value of human life. >*Society* does not decide anything. *People* decide things. >*Society* is only a (sometimes) convenient figment of our >imaginations. No person has the right to take over the body >of another, even to prevent death (or promote life). If you have to, read "the state" for "society", or perhaps "law"... In our country, the people in our society have the option to decide that abortion is wrong (by enacting legislation to make it illegal). And who's taking over who's body? The fetus didn't appear as if by magic... Sometimes when I'm reading articles in this group, it sounds like people are saying that this fetus came from nowhere and is taking over this random woman's body. Now, I'll assume that everyone really does know better than that, but let's try and keep in mind that any woman who is sexually active is taking the risk (or welcoming the risk!) of becoming pregnant. There ought to be some consideration of this risk and some acceptance of the responsibility involved if a pregnancy does occur. And, this responsibility ought to go beyond using some kind of birth control method to the knowledge that birth control methods do fail sometimes... Again, let me say that reasonable alternatives to abortion must be provided -- no woman should ever *have* to get an abortion. >> ... From the women I've talked to, most would rather carry the baby to >>term (given that they are now pregnant) or would definitely carry to >>term if the pregnancy had occurred at some other more convenient time. > >This is the exact opposite of what the women I have talked to said. Perhaps when they either never want to have children or already have enough, but I don't think I ever remember anyone at the center who told me that they never wanted to have children -- and most were too young to have too many already. On the contrary, most were concerned about whether or not having an abortion would effect their ability to have children later on. >> ... I think that our society would >>be much better off helping the women solve their problems and carry >>the baby than to provide the "easy" solution of abortion. > >So you want me (through tax money, I suppose) to pay for other >people's children? Why should I? Hmmm. So you *do* know who society is after all... As for your question, you already do pay for other people's children because our society has already decided that (born) children are valuable. (Now, the Social Services system needs help -- as do our schools... but that's different issue.) >>Providing alternatives to abortion requires more commitment and more >>love, but isn't it worth it? > >No. Why do you think it is? Abortion is destroying our society by lessening the value of a human life (if you don't believe me, just keep reading this newsgroup...). We need to reverse this by learning to value human life -- the life of the unborn child as well as the mother -- and help them. We need to strenthen the family unit and hold up the ideal that life should be created out of love and commitment to the nurturing of that life. We need to teach our young people that sex without love *and* commitment is going to lose right quick -- and not just because a pregnancy might result... >>... Isn't it better to support life than to kill it??? > >Not at the expense of enslaving women! "Enslaving women"? I'm not for enslaving women; only for people taking responsibility for their actions. -- -Liz Allen Univ of Maryland, College Park MD Usenet: ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz Arpanet: liz@tove (or liz@maryland) "This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all" -- 1 John 1:5
butch@drutx.UUCP (FreemanS) (11/30/84)
The conservatives on the net are calling for an end to abortion
because in their eyes it is morally wrong. Liz Allen suggests that
society should be doing something about this. With all the cuts to
aid to dependent children as well as welfare cuts, it may be just as
morally wrong for these women to raise children in substandard
conditions in the inner city with no hope for the future.
The so-called Reagan mandate showed that americans were tired of the
"liberal welfare state"(rep. Newt Gingrich republican GA.). The
many cuts in social programs are leaving many women with little or
no options. With more and more children being born into single
parent homes with children already present, many of these women
simply just can't afford another child. With poverty increasing
every year in this country can it not be more wrong to raise an
unwanted child if one lacks the economic ability.
What appalls me is that the people who post on this news group are
decidely not your average americans. Most people are educated and
come from middle class backgrounds with two parent homes. Most
people on the net could afford an unwanted child. But what about
the millions of americans who can't. With the goverment announcing
that unemployment applications are up this month alot of these
people can ill afford a child. With the Reagan mandate what do you
do create a new social program to discourage abortion, who is going
to pay for this. Surely not all you conservative pro-lifers. With
all the ranting and raving on the net about this controversial issue
I for one would like to see something a bit more constructive said
about this.
How can people who have never went hungry, lived in ghettos, or
maybe never been layed off from a job tell these people that they
should have an unwanted child just because they think its morally
right. With all you yuppies going for Reagan in the election, are
you willing to increase programs such as aid to dependent children,
school lunches, welfare, funding adoption agencies, and head start.
Lets face even though we elected a republican president most
americans like the welfare state. They always look to big brother
to solve their problems. I wonder if may people on the net would
feel the same if the shoe is on the other foot.
Most people would suggest adoption agencies for these children, but
besides white babies there are very very few who would adopt a baby
that is of any other racial background. With more and more babies
being born out of wedlock to poor women the burden of these children
falls to society who puts them in childrens homes who with all the
budget cuts does not give all the care and direction that they need.
A good percentage of these children turn to crime and prostition.
Could you imagine a life time with no one to turn to and when you're
eighteen you're out in the streets.
Hopefully the discussuion on the net will turn to a construcitve
dialog between the pro-life and pro-choice advocates.
liberally yours,
S. Freemansaquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (11/30/84)
>Gerald Owens is right, by the way, in saying that the pro-life >movement is waking up to providing help to women in crisis due to >pregnancy. I work on a coalition for Pregnancy Assistance which >will be placing women in the private homes of people willing to open >their homes in order to help a woman. This is very important to me >because merely telling a woman that she should not get an abortion is >*not* enough! >-- > -Liz Allen I fail to see how this will help more than a few people. How many women would actually WANT to live in someone else's home, just because they are having a baby? Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (11/30/84)
>>> = Liz Allen >> = Ken Montgomery > = Liz Allen >>Valued by whom? Anyway, why does the alleged "value" of a fetus >>override the woman's right to control her property (her body)? > >Valued by society or the state in that the values of a society >(especially one like ours) are realized by the laws. Society is not a person. It cannot think. It therefore *cannot* hold values. >As has been said at least a few times before, there are two rights >involved here: (1) the right of the fetus to live and (2) the right of >the woman to control her own body. The right the fetus has to live is >related to the value we place on its life and that value has to with >our view of the fetus. If we view it as a human being with the >accompanying rights, then its right to live is much greater than the >right of the woman to control her body. Only if you give the right to life precedence over the right to control one's property. But this argument is nugatory, since the "right to life" is couterfeit; there is no such right. There is the right to *attempt* life, but it does *not* include the ability to make claims on the resources of others. Ergo, the woman is acting fully within her rights in choosing to refuse the aid of her body to the fetus, i.e., in getting an abortion. >>Why does the alleged brain activity of the fetus give it the right >>to use the woman's body? > >See the above... The "above" did not, in my opinion, answer the question. >>>If it causes you to grant a high degree of humanity to the unborn >>>and if you value humanity, then abortion does become unthinkable. >> >>"Value humanity"? What does this phrase mean? Are you saying >>that there is some way in which random people are valuable to >>me? Can I trade this value for a microcomputer? :-) > >I *thought* our society had some regard for the value of human life. (Once again...) Figments of the imagination cannot hold *regard* for anything, including values. >>*Society* does not decide anything. *People* decide things. >>*Society* is only a (sometimes) convenient figment of our >>imaginations. No person has the right to take over the body >>of another, even to prevent death (or promote life). > >If you have to, read "the state" for "society", or perhaps "law"... >In our country, the people in our society have the option to decide >that abortion is wrong (by enacting legislation to make it illegal). The law does not state what is right and what is wrong; vide the so-called "eminent domain" power -- legal theft. Are there circumstances in which theft is right? The law merely states the whims of those who have achieved political power. >And who's taking over who's body? The fetus didn't appear as if >by magic... Sometimes when I'm reading articles in this group, it >sounds like people are saying that this fetus came from nowhere >and is taking over this random woman's body. Where it came from is irrelevant. Consent to sex is *NOT* consent to conception! > Now, I'll assume that >everyone really does know better than that, but let's try and keep >in mind that any woman who is sexually active is taking the risk Yes... >(or welcoming the risk!) BOGUS!! Just burned out my **** bogosity meter! If you drive a car, are you "welcoming the risk" of being in an accident? > of becoming pregnant. There ought to be >some consideration of this risk and some acceptance of the >responsibility involved if a pregnancy does occur. And, this >responsibility ought to go beyond using some kind of birth control >method to the knowledge that birth control methods do fail sometimes... Which leads to abortion, as the alternative one turns to after contraceptives have failed. I assume that you think abortion is irresponsible. If so, why? >Again, let me say that reasonable alternatives to abortion must be >provided -- no woman should ever *have* to get an abortion. If you want to provide them, I won't stop you. On the other hand, you should not try to stop those who wish abortions, although you should not be required to pay for them. >>> ... I think that our society would >>>be much better off helping the women solve their problems and carry >>>the baby than to provide the "easy" solution of abortion. >> >>So you want me (through tax money, I suppose) to pay for other >>people's children? Why should I? > >Hmmm. So you *do* know who society is after all... So a society is a group of people who come together in order to loot each others' pocketbooks? Preposterous. > As for your >question, you already do pay for other people's children because our >society has already decided that (born) children are valuable. Once again, people decide, not society. Why does the alleged value of children make it incumbent on me to support them? >>>Providing alternatives to abortion requires more commitment and more >>>love, but isn't it worth it? >> >>No. Why do you think it is? > >Abortion is destroying our society by lessening the value of a human >life (if you don't believe me, just keep reading this newsgroup...). I still don't know why you think that the alleged "value" of human life is relevant to the abortion question. >We need to reverse this by learning to value human life WHAT value? How does one measure it? > -- the life of the unborn child as well as the mother Hmmm. Baby factory time again. > -- and help them. Why? > We need to >strenthen the family unit and hold up the ideal that life should be >created out of love and commitment to the nurturing of that life. Are you Catholic? Whether or not, why do all of us have to follow your idea of the proper mode of life for people? > We >need to teach our young people that sex without love *and* commitment >is going to lose right quick -- and not just because a pregnancy might >result... Who in the H*LL do you think you are going around setting up standards by which the sexual activities of others are to be measured?! Do you *really* think that you own these people?! >>>... Isn't it better to support life than to kill it??? >> >>Not at the expense of enslaving women! > >"Enslaving women"? I'm not for enslaving women; only for people >taking responsibility for their actions. Forcing a person to use her or his body in a way she or he does not want is slavery. BTW, why is abortion irresponsible? > -Liz Allen -- "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" Ken Montgomery ...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]
owens@gitpyr.UUCP (Gerald Owens) (11/30/84)
> [ken montgomery] > >[Liz Allen] > >Its right to remain in the mother's body against the mother's will is > >dependant on whether or not its life is valued more than mother's > >inconvenience to carry the baby to term. > > Valued by whom? Anyway, why does the alleged "value" of a fetus > override the woman's right to control her property (her body)? > We normally restrict the criminal's right to control his body to prevent him from harming others, for a fixed period of time, and nobody objects. It's nine months of the woman's inconvenience vs. the LIFE of another human being. Life is more valuable than property. (ken used the term 'property', not I!) > >I would also like to point out that here you do think the development > >of the child's brain is relevant and the actions of the child throughout > >the narrative would indicate a fairly high amount of brain activity > >(relative to the typical picture of next to none which is argued by > >the pro-choice side). > > Why does the alleged brain activity of the fetus give it the right > to use the woman's body? > it apparently disproves abortionist propaganda that what is being aborted (killed, murdered, whatever) is not anything really human. Besides, it didn't get where it is by itself! Again, actions by individuals in our society can lead to restrictions of their "rights" in order to protect others. No, the woman is not a criminal, but TWO lives are involved now. Again, it is a matter of nine months of inconvenience VS a human life. If one is permitted to kill another, in order to make the next nine months a little nicer for themselves.... > >If it causes you to grant a high degree of humanity to the unborn > >and if you value humanity, then abortion does become unthinkable. > > "Value humanity"? What does this phrase mean? Are you saying > that there is some way in which random people are valuable to > me? Can I trade this value for a microcomputer? :-) Lets see: Vietnam, the boat people, Palestinians, Hungarians, Czechs, Afghans, Jews, Blacks, Women. Just a few victims of people who questioned the value of valuing humanity. By attempts to deny the humanity of the not-as-yet-born, one can keep it off the above list. If it's humanity is evident to all but the self-blind, then denying the value of humanity, as ken has done, is the next logical step in order to keep the "right" of oppression. > > -Liz Allen > > -- > "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" > Ken Montgomery I wonder what else you are now ready to shred, ken. -- Gerald Owens Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!owens
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (12/03/84)
> = Liz Allen > > As has been said at least a few times before, there are two rights > involved here: (1) the right of the fetus to live and (2) the right of > the woman to control her own body. The right the fetus has to live is > related to the value we place on its life and that value has to with > our view of the fetus. If we view it as a human being with the > accompanying rights, then its right to live is much greater than the > right of the woman to control her body. > Ah! here we come to the crux of it!! WHY is someone's right to live greater than someone's right to control their own body? I for one disagree completely with your assertion above. If I was to be a judge in a court case involving one person who needs a part of another person's body (maybe a patch of skin for grafts or a kidney, you name it) and the second person refusing to provide that part of their body, I would rule in favour of the person refusing to provide the part, even though I would know very well that this would mean the death of the first person. Of course I would never want to be in a position to make such a difficult decision for other people because I really do not see how it would be any of my business to do so. I find the idea of using authority on such issues EXTREMELY unethical and very scary, much more scary than the fact that people will die because other people will not let them use parts of their body. > > And who's taking over who's body? The fetus didn't appear as if > by magic... Sometimes when I'm reading articles in this group, it > sounds like people are saying that this fetus came from nowhere > and is taking over this random woman's body. Now, I'll assume that > everyone really does know better than that, but let's try and keep > in mind that any woman who is sexually active is taking the risk > (or welcoming the risk!) of becoming pregnant. There ought to be > some consideration of this risk and some acceptance of the > responsibility involved if a pregnancy does occur. And, this > responsibility ought to go beyond using some kind of birth control > method to the knowledge that birth control methods do fail sometimes... > OK, what about women who are raped then? > Again, let me say that reasonable alternatives to abortion must be > provided -- no woman should ever *have* to get an abortion. > I would rather say: "no woman should ever *have* to get an unwanted abortion", but no woman should ever have to have an unwanted pregnancy either. (If we're talking "should"s here, I might as well go all the way) > >> ... From the women I've talked to, most would rather carry the baby to > >>term (given that they are now pregnant) or would definitely carry to > >>term if the pregnancy had occurred at some other more convenient time. > > > >This is the exact opposite of what the women I have talked to said. > > Perhaps when they either never want to have children or already have > enough, but I don't think I ever remember anyone at the center who > told me that they never wanted to have children -- and most were too > young to have too many already. On the contrary, most were concerned > about whether or not having an abortion would effect their ability to > have children later on. > And who claimed that women who had abortions never wanted to have children? certainly not pro-choice people. Let me remind you that it is the pro-life movement who is trying to depict such women as heartless monsters, not the pro-choice movement. I think your second sentence above: "or would definitely carry to term if the pregnancy had occured at some more convenient time" says it all. People have abortions because they do not want to have a child at that particular time, not because they are horrible children- haters. Most of my friends who have had abortions want to have children eventually. Thank you Liz for telling people how women having abortions really are. I am glad someone from the pro-life side is dispelling those awful images of women having abortio}ins as "rich bitches who get an abortion because their stomach won't fit behind the sterring wheel of their Mercedez" that some of the women-haters in the movement are trying to project. Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley
features@ihuxf.UUCP (M.A. Zeszutko) (12/03/84)
I find it very hard to see the consistency in people who say they are "pro-life" who go to bomb places when they know people are inhabiting those same places. How could one claim the title "pro-life" when one is attempting to kill someone else? -- aMAZon @ AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL; ihnp4!ihuxf!features "Don't let the name fool you. What else can you come up with out of initials MAZ?"
mjc@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA (Monica Cellio) (12/04/84)
Forgive me if a lot of what I am about to say is old; I'm new to this net. [Gerald Owens] > We normally restrict the criminal's right to control his >body to prevent him from harming others, for a fixed period of time, and >nobody objects. It's nine months of the woman's inconvenience vs. the >LIFE of another human being. Life is more valuable than property. If I have taken reasonable precautions (abstinense is not necessarily 'reasonable', though it is probably safe), I have done nothing wrong to cause me to become pregnant. Contrast this with a criminal, who has been convicted of doing some wrong and is thus being PUNISHED. Why should I be punished for something that might not be my fault? At least suspected criminals get a trial. As for the folks who contend that any pro-choice person is a raving murderer: If I am pregnant and don't want to be burdened with it (more on why this isn't merely an issue of 'convenience' in a minute), I feel I have the right to rid myself of the burden. Now, if you can devise some method of keeping the thing 'alive' after its removal, feel free to do so! If you can't, too bad. An unplanned pregnancy can do horrible things to a woman's life. In many cases her career is shot to hell, and if she's not married that probably means (1) she can't support the kid anyway (without a job) and (2) she may end up on welfare or some such in the process. All this without compensation for the time and work status she loses, compensation for the use of her body against her will, or indeed any effort whatsoever to repair the damage done by the government that would force her into the situation! Come now. Do you really think this is right? Is it any different from, say, telling a 16-year-old (either sex) that s/he has to give up everything and take care of baby brother because mom and dad died suddenly? (The person in question might do this anyway, of course, but what right have you got to force him/her?) When you're imposing your morality and causing harm in the process, you had better have better reasons than 'because I believe it is wrong'. -Dragon -- UUCP: ...seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!lll-crg!dragon ARPA: monica.cellio@cmu-cs-cad or dragon@lll-crg
johnston@spp1.UUCP (12/04/84)
> > >Gerald Owens is right, by the way, in saying that the pro-life > >movement is waking up to providing help to women in crisis due to > >pregnancy. I work on a coalition for Pregnancy Assistance which > >will be placing women in the private homes of people willing to open > >their homes in order to help a woman. This is very important to me > >because merely telling a woman that she should not get an abortion is > >*not* enough! > >-- > > -Liz Allen > > I fail to see how this will help more than a few people. How many women > would actually WANT to live in someone else's home, just because they are > having a baby? > > Sophie Quigley > ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley Its not a question of wanting to live in another's home. In some cases, there is no choice. A very brave young woman (15 years old) stayed with us one winter to have her baby and see it successfully adopted because her family wanted nothing to do with her or the child yet she felt responsible for its life. Mike Johnston
brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson) (12/09/84)
> -Liz Allen > We need to > strenthen the family unit and hold up the ideal that life should be > created out of love and commitment to the nurturing of that life. (Here is my rewording:) A life should be created only when the creators have the love and commitment to nurture it. (Here are some of my thoughts on the definition of "life":) I make the distinction between biological life and the kind of stuff one would put in a diary. (sentience?) Biological life includes frogs, trees, viruses (barely), plankton, planarian, beef cattle, felons, worms, eaters of canned tuna fish, grass, grass, and nasty little bacteria. Biological life is just those entities which do biological processes: take substances from the environment to build and power themselves, reproduce themselves, and react to stimuli in order to keep on existing. The other kind of life is what we are living. This "we" includes all sentient creatures or whatever. It includes most adult homo-sapiens. (the few exceptions are those who don't have hardly anything at all whatsoever upstairs -- like someone permanently comatose, etc). Likewise, little kiddies live their lives. Babies don't do as much, but there still is a bit more than just biological processes in their existences. They observe the world, and learn about their bodies, etc. The actions of the fetus in "Liz's" video fall under the category of biological life more than sentient life. Some things are more sentient than others. This is fairly obvious (I hope). Now, there is not a big fat line dividing sentient from non-sentient. I percieve a continuous scale here. Somewhere, there is a point/range below which are only plants and "dumb beasts", and above which are "somebodies". (Not neccesarily only homo-sapiens. Some consider their pets "part of the family") This point is hard to define, cuz we anthropomorphize like crazy. (We can only interpret the world from our own point of view.) (Now here is my rewording of Liz's statement again:) A life should be created only when the creators have the love and commitment to nurture it. (And here are the things I want to say about the quote above:) If you DON'T have what it takes to support a life (either type) then one of two things must happen: either you must come up with the proper resources or not have the life. For the case where there is just a biological life but not a sentience, there is no problem. A life that already exists can be ended with little or no qualms. (Food animals, parasites, etc) We do not place a high value on mere biological life. (Now if you can come up with the proper resources, no problem.) The case where there is a sentient life is different, because we value sentient life. Thus, we don't permit murder. The proper resources for raising a sentient life are different from those for raising a biological life. They are love, commitment, peace, an enriching and educational environment, etc. You can NOT force someone to love, or to be committed. This is in the nature of love. Where does abortion fit into the picture??? It all depends on how sentient a fetus is. If it is non-sentient, there is no problem with abortion. It is merely the killing of a biological life (something we do always), but not of a sentience. If a fetus is fully sentient, it is of course wrong to kill it. It is also wrong to leave the fetus with people who cannot provide the love and nurturing it needs. If a fetus is slightly sentient, the answer is harder. If it is right in the middle, the answer is the hardest, of course, since the situation is not close to either of the extremes for which there is an answer. We must then compare whether there is enough of that love, etc (consider all sources) with how much we value sentience, and how much we would prefer to give a sentient life PROPER care, love, etc. BTW, I believe that some who have abortions have more respect for (sentient) life. They have decided not to raise the sentient being in an environment where there is not enough love and commitment. They sacrifice the biological life to >prevent< a bad sentient life. (Not all who abort are this way. Those who use it as their only form of birth control might only consider their own convenience.) So who out there are on the side of increasing the weight of homo-sapiens flesh, and who want to make the world safe for sentience????? Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianp ^ ^
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (12/13/84)
[] This reply (and several others) are coming later than they should, but higher-priority things have kept me from responding. > [Gerald Owens] >> [ken montgomery] >> >[Liz Allen] >> >Its right to remain in the mother's body against the mother's will is >> >dependant on whether or not its life is valued more than mother's >> >inconvenience to carry the baby to term. I didn't notice the fundamental flaw in this argument initially. Liz argues that "right ... is dependant". Nonsense. Rights are axiomatic. A person's claim to rights, however, is valid if and only if that person has not violated the rights of another. It does not matter whether the fetus was invited into the woman's body; it has no right to remain after her consent to its presence ends. Thus the fetus, not its mother, is the violator of the rights of another in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. >> Valued by whom? Anyway, why does the alleged "value" of a fetus >> override the woman's right to control her property (her body)? >> > We normally restrict the criminal's right to control his >body to prevent him from harming others, for a fixed period of time, and >nobody objects. So a pregnant woman is, in principle, the same as a criminal, since her rights are to be restricted to prevent her from "harming others"? The criminal is being restricted from doing harm. The mother is being required to render aid to a parasite within her body, which she would prefer to have removed. The two situations are not equivalent. > It's nine months of the woman's inconvenience vs. the >LIFE of another human being. Life is more valuable than property. >(ken used the term 'property', not I!) The fetus has no contractual claim on the woman's body, thus no right to her resources. If you can require people to meet obligations which they did not undertake by entering into contracts, then you can require anything of anyone -- you have demolished the standard of proper requirement (*voluntary* consent). > ... it apparently disproves abortionist propaganda that what is >being aborted (killed, murdered, whatever) is not anything really >human. Besides, it didn't get where it is by itself! Nor did the fetus get there *entirely* by the woman's volition. (I won't re-hash contraceptive failures, etc.) > Again, actions >by individuals in our society can lead to restrictions of their "rights" >in order to protect others. This is reasonable only if the rights of these "others" are actually being violated. > No, the woman is not a criminal, Really? Sure sounds like you want to treat her like one! > but >TWO lives are involved now. Again, it is a matter of nine months of >inconvenience VS a human life. Who are you to set up standards of permissible inconvenience for others? > If one is permitted to kill another, in >order to make the next nine months a little nicer for themselves.... If the one is permitted to enslave another, in order that the one may live.... >> "Value humanity"? What does this phrase mean? Are you saying >> that there is some way in which random people are valuable to >> me? Can I trade this value for a microcomputer? :-) > > Lets see: Vietnam, the boat people, Palestinians, Hungarians, >Czechs, Afghans, Jews, Blacks, Women. Just a few victims of people >who questioned the value of valuing humanity. Answer my question, please. You have only continued to use the term "valuing humanity" without defining it. What does it mean? On what scale does one measure the "value of humanity"? > By attempts to deny the >humanity of the not-as-yet-born, one can keep it off the above list. >If it's humanity is evident to all but the self-blind, then denying >the value of humanity, as ken has done, is the next logical step in order >to keep the "right" of oppression. Forced pregnancy is a form of oppression. Abortion is a form of refusing aid. To oppress and to refuse aid are not the same. Oppression is wrong. Refusing aid is not. The humanity of the fetus is irrelevant to this distinction. >Gerald Owens -- "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" Ken Montgomery ...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]