archiel@hercules.UUCP (Archie Lachner) (04/25/84)
Steven Maurer states in a previous article that the question of when a fetus
becomes a human being "has been pretty clearly established." If Mr. Maurer
means that this question has been established as the one on which the entire
abortion debate should be based, then I heartily agree with him. If, on the
other hand, he means that the answer to this question is clearly established,
I couldn't disagree more. If the latter is true, I urge Mr. Maurer to cite
the biological evidence that is accepted in the scientific and medical
communities establishing the definitive answer to this question.
A local newspaper, the Oregonian (Portland), ran an article recently that
presented a dilemma facing doctors during some abortions performed after
the first (second?) trimester of pregnancy. During the some of the
procedures, the fetus is alive when it is removed from the womb! The question
facing these doctors is whether they are required under their Hippocratic
oaths to attempt to save the baby's life, and further, given that the baby
was born prematurely because of the abortion and is attempting to live,
whether the abortion was justifiable in the first place! I use the term
"baby" rather than "fetus" since I doubt the latter would apply to a
baby born prematurely due to other causes.
In light of this article, I doubt whether the medical community considers
the question of when a fetus is also a human being to be answered. There is
much research being done currently that may lead to some kind of answer to
this question. In the mean time, I ask the following question.
Given that killing of human beings is to be considered murder under all but
the most extenuating of circumstances, and given that the point at which
a human fetus is also a human being has not been established, how can the
abortion and the killing of a fetus be justified or considered anything
but murder?
--
Archie Lachner
Logic Design Systems Division
Tektronix, Inc.
uucp: {ucbvax,decvax,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!tektronix!teklds!archiel
CSnet: archiel@tek
ARPAnet: archiel.tek@csnet-relayrcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (04/28/84)
<> >Given that killing of human beings is to be considered murder under all but >the most extenuating of circumstances, and given that the point at which >a human fetus is also a human being has not been established, how can the >abortion and the killing of a fetus be justified or considered anything >but murder? Dammit, fella, read what you wrote! If you haven't established whether the fetus is human, and murder means killing a human, you haven't established whether killing the fetus is murder: murder = killing human but fetus ?= human so you may not substitute fetus for human to get murder = killing fetus. -- ...Cerebus for dictator! Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303) 444-5710 x3086
steven@qubix.UUCP (Steven Maurer) (05/02/84)
> Steven Maurer states in a previous article that the question of when a fetus > becomes a human being "has been pretty clearly established." If Mr. Maurer > means that this question has been established as the one on which the entire > abortion debate should be based, then I heartily agree with him. If, on the > other hand, he means that the answer to this question is clearly established, > I couldn't disagree more. This is what the author was talking about: >> I think that is has been pretty well estabilshed, that killing >> humans in this country should be illegal. Therefore, the real >> question of abortion is not "should abortion be legal?", or "are >> fetuses human?", but rather "when does an unborn infant become a >> human?". This question, I believe, has been pretty clearly established. ( the article then goes on to discuss the various criteria for humanity that various people have ) Believe me that when I say that a "question has been established", I do not mean the "answer has been established". If I had thought so, no doubt I would have said so. Now my only question is, why don't people read an entire article before responding? Steven Maurer