steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (09/17/84)
*** **** When does a fetus become a human being? I am sure it varies. Since Santa Cruz is a beach town we get hords of adolecents. They often litter, drink, play horrible loud "music", and drive their cars in an irresponsible manner that causes almost daily carnage. I ask myself, are these human beings? How about abortion to the 99th trimester? :-) -- Don Steiny - Personetics @ (408) 425-0382 109 Torrey Pine Terr. Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 ihnp4!pesnta -\ fortune!idsvax -> scc!steiny ucbvax!twg -/
gkm@hou2b.UUCP (G.MCNEES) (09/26/84)
Seriously, why draw the line at birth? A child/baby is dependent upon its parents for some time. Why not permit "choice" beyond birth? If the parents choose to get rid of the baby why shouldn't they have the right. (By the way, this is not a new notion: it was quite popular for this to be done especially to one of the sexes in past civilizations.) After all, a baby has very little ability to defend itself, isn't really much of a "person", can't vote, etc. Must mooch off the parents, ie live in their house, eat their food etc. Also some of the little twirps are really accidental, aren't they? I'd like some comment on what is so special about birth other than it being a well defined time period. After all, there isn't much difference in the entity some time before and after birth, as far a science has been able to determine. You may say that the baby could be adopted- however, this casts aspersions on the parents and in addition causes an increased tax burden on us "innocent" "pure" and "celibate" tax payers! gary
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (10/19/84)
> >Seriously, why draw the line at birth? > >A child/baby is dependent upon its parents for some time. Why not >permit "choice" beyond birth? If the parents choose to get rid of >the baby why shouldn't they have the right. (By the way, this is not >a new notion: it was quite popular for this to be done especially to >one of the sexes in past civilizations.) After all, a baby has Still popular (but illegal) in rural china from what I have heard. >very little ability to defend itself, isn't really much of a >"person", can't vote, etc. Must mooch off the parents, ie live in >their house, eat their food etc. Also some of the little twirps are >really accidental, aren't they? I'd like some comment on what is so >special about birth other than it being a well defined time period. >After all, there isn't much difference in the entity some time >before and after birth, as far a science has been able to >determine. There is one main difference: before birth the child lives inside another person's body and if that person just does not want an intruder in her body, then she has a right to get rid of it. This argument is not valid anymore after birth. >You may say that the baby could be adopted- however, this casts >aspersions on the parents and in addition causes an increased tax >burden on us "innocent" "pure" and "celibate" tax payers! > > gary huh? Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley
andrews@uiucdcsb.UUCP (10/24/84)
They have already extended the parents "rights" to after birth, look at the baby doe case earlier this year where the starve a child. Continueing down this path would lead to killing babies for not being the right sex, as they do in China, or for other "slight" reasons. Brad Andrews