kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (12/03/84)
[ LINE THIS MESSAGE WITH YOUR REPLACEMENT... ] >[Paul Dubuc in <4181@cbscc.UUCP>] > ... >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. The burden rests on the person proposing the principle, not the person disputing it. Anyway, what does the court system have to do with principles? And why does the child have a right *to* life, as opposed to a right *to attempt* life? In other words, why does the child have the *right* to be supported? >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? > 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. Why does he have the right to be supported in the first place? Why is his inability a claim on the ability of others? >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? The distinction is not one of development. Rather, it is that the two-year-old is not a parasite in its mother's body; the ten-week-old, on the other hand, is. >}>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. Once again... So what? > ... >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? No, Paul, I really was just testing an (apparently) simpler explanation... >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. If you're grossed out by medical procedures, don't watch them. >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. Not necessarily. > How does anyone know what's >going on in any human's brain when you are trying to kill them. How indeed?! > ... > 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? I advanced no such theory. I merely questioned the interpretation of the events shown on the sonogram. >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. > ... >It would be at least a step in the right direction if the fetus had >at least as much protection as the neighborhood cat. Why? > ... >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. > ... >}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. > 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. No. Society is not a person and does not have a mind, so it can neither have knowledge nor be ignorant, nor be anything in between. > 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. Maybe. Then again, maybe not. > ... >}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. Who else can carry children *she* conceives? >Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd >[Paul Dubuc in <4182@cbscc.UUCP>] >>From a biological standpoint, it seems to me that sex cells only become >an individual, a human being, when a certain specific event takes place: >conception. Really? Are people *just* bodies? > 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". > ... >Most women aren't even sure they are pregnant until they are several weeks >pregnant. If a human life doesn't begin at conception, does it begin >when the woman knows she's pregnant? Aren't the egg and sperm alive at conception? If so, how can you say that life "begins" then? > When *does* it begin? Why is the question of when life "begins" relevant to the question of abortion? > Are pro-choicers >trying to answer that question, or just muddy the waters? Ah, yes... the ad hominem attack, once again. >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]