bstempleton@watmath.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (03/04/84)
First of all, PLEASE NOTE that I have edited the subject of this followup. Please give all your followups a new subject. I hate to see dozens of Re: articles where the subject tells you little. The automatic "Re:" feature is one of the worst misfeatures of the news system. To answer some questions: This line is a very difficult one to draw. For example, and 18 month old child (and may even younger) can speak and understand human language. They thus class as persons. Even younger children show definite signs of human intelligence. On the other hand, a 3 month fetus seems to be definitely below the line, as it's clear to me that dolphins, many simians and even pigs have higher intelligence. So lets be conservative, and draw the line low. Let's draw it where we are sure the mind is undeveloped. 4 months (after which abortion is unsafe) sure sounds like a good place to begin. So I am not necessarily advocating infanticide, although one could think about it if everybody could agree where to draw the line for mental development. And I am really pissed off at people suggesting I advocate killing people in comas. I stated quite explicitly that my rules only applied to organisms that had never attained personhood. Once a human being becomes a person (== creature with developed mind) they achieve a status and the rights of a person. If they can recover, they deserve that chance, for it could be a terrible thing to kill that person. And please, I asked there be no name calling. Comparing me to Hitler is a bit much. I'm not going to listen to much more from that poster. On to the chemical reaction bit. I am fully aware we don't understand much about the mechanism of fetal division and growth. But I doubt anybody (except a religious person) will tell you that something other than super-complex biochemistry is going on. But that's not my point. My point is, whatever is going on, what is so special about it? What makes it murder to destroy it? Something not to be taken lightly, sure, but murder? After all, most fertilizations end in spontaneous miscarriage. Should not this be manslaughter? Should it not be a crime to have sex at a time that might result in a fertilization that will get washed away with the next period? Should mothers who have a high chance of spontaneous miscarriage be prevented from conceiving? Sure it isn't their fault, but it isn't a maniac's fault that he kills (it's something wrong with his body/brain) but we still lock him up to prevent further murder. Should we not sterilize any woman who might have a miscarriage to prevent the manslaughter? If we don't do this, then we say that it's ok to kill if you can't help it in the case of a fetus, but not in the case of an adult. So you're drawing a line based on the mind level, just like me... -- Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ont. (519) 886-7304