pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (05/03/84)
[from Matthew Thurmaier:] > I propose the following (similar) definition: > > A fetus becomes a human when the ambilical cord is cut. > >My reasoning is as follows: > > I believe that the fetus is merely one of the woman's appendages, > similar to a finger etc. If the woman feels that (for what ever > reason) she no longer desires to have this appendage attached to her, > then it should be removed. > > >Always open for a sound, unemotional, logical debate, > What you propose as your reasoning is not reasoning, it is a statement of belief, from which your definition is derived. What is the reasoning that supports that belief? We have been though this "the fetus is only a *part* of the woman's body" argument before. The discussion in this news group tends to be cyclical, which contributes greatly to its lack of having any positive effect. Anyway, here I go again... The fetus is *not* a part of the woman's body like a finger. There are important differences between it and the woman's finger. The circulatory, respiratory, digestive, and nervous systems of the fetus are independant of the mother's. The normal fetus has one head, two arm, legs, etc. (You might have to redefine its parts to form a logical basis for your belief). If the fetus is only an appendage of the mother then logically a pregnant woman must have four arms, two heads, etc. If the fetus were a male, we would run into an even greater logical absurdity. The fetus is an individual in itself. You can't, by any means, place it arbitrarily as an appendage of the woman's body. Such argument has no logical or biological foundation. It has not even been a reason to consider abortion acceptable, rather an attempt at justification involving arbitrary redefinition to obtain a more desirable status for the fetus. A status that will make us all feel that what we are already doing is right. 1984 is here indeed. It is as if, all of the sudden, they are saying that human reproduction ought to be different for the fetus to be considered human. There is little attempt to find out how things actually are, only to define how they should be. For the fetus to be considered human in the minds of these people then, its conception ought to have had no relationship whatsoever to the woman's body--its own parent. This is an absurd criterion. -- Paul Dubuc {cbosgd, ihnp4} !cbscc!pmd "The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world..." (John 1:9)