hawk@oliven.UUCP (09/15/84)
>9s From: hawk@oliven.UUCP >9s Subject: Re: Abortions and Reducing Them >9s > For those of you who maintain that >9s >abortion == murder, but then say that the woman should not be tried for >9s >murder, please justify. (ommitted lines showing that I don't agree) >9s >9s Both the women and the doctor should be prosecuted. As it is >9s pre-meditated, it should probably be treated as murder in the first degree. > >And the women who conceive the 70% or whatever embryos which die naturally? >What do we do there? You can't get them for negligent homicide, because >there is little to stop it, and it's too hard to detect in time, anyway. >What if 70% of kindergarteners were being zapped by lightning or >child eating monsters? It is nobody's fault, but our society >would go to extreme lengths to protect them. Society just does not >value embryos quite as much. By this logic we shouldn't prosecute drunken drivers who cause fatalities either, since an almost equal number of people die in accidents without booze. >And now for something off the wall. There have been 2 or 3 instances >(or maybe more? any evidence?) of some random cell in a male >deciding that it would act as if it were a fertilized ovum. > Now, suppose this rare >event happened to YOU? What would you do? Do not rant about >whether this is probable, or relevant. What would you do, hawk@oliven? I won't rant and rave, and I wouldn't. I'd give it every chance at life that I could. It's chances wouldn't be very good, but it still deserves its chance. >R I also want to restrict rape, murder, and a handful of other >R things that aren't harming me. > >Rape and murder harm members of society. Abortion does not. It does too. I find that fetus's should be considered members of society for the same reasons that blacks and women should be considered members of society. >Actions that do not harm society should not be restricted. You're right. Abortion simply doesn't fall into this category. >R So I can put my children to sleep, but not yours? > >As long as they are under 3 months old (measured from conception), Sure. >Children past birth but not yet 18 have been given SOME rights by us. >(We consider them to be part way to becoming members of "society", and >thus give them partial rights. Specifying at what point abortion >is ok is just specifying a zero point on the scale of developing >"member-of-society-ness". Before-conception is considered to be >before zero. Is anyone giving sperm and ova rights?) Then why doesn't society have the right to give any rights to the fetus? And where did three months come from? rick BTW, anyone familiar with "Horton Hears a Who"? -- [hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix]!oliveb!oliven!hawk