trash@oliveb.UUCP (Tom Repa) (10/01/86)
n.b. >> = Oleg "Kill the bastards" Kiselev > = Paul M. Dubuc >>A 2-year old can be cared for by many >>different agencies, biological parents (mother, in particular) are not >>essential to the survival of the 2-year old. A 2-year old is a biologically >>independent entity. > > A fetus is also a biologically independent entity. The only *biological* > relationship the fetus has to the mother (or father) is that of being > her offspring. This is the same relationship that the 2-year-old has. > A 2-year-old is still completely dependent on some adult for all the > necessities of life; only the means of providing them changes with the > environment that the child lives in. This is the most ludicrous statement I've seen in talk.abortion yet! If the fetus is a biologically independent entity, they I suggest that all women seeking an abortion should send thier feti to Paul, postpaid. (Since it is biologically independent, this would legally be the same as giving the baby up for aboption, and therefore some governmental agencies might have to get involved.) As for a two year old being "completely dependent on some adult" the point is that the two year old is dependent on _any_ adult (though I daresay it will like some more than others), whereas the fetus is dependent on its biological mother only. If you don't believe this, then I guess you DO believe that women could send you 5-week since fertilization !babies in the mail, and that you could care for them. > Another implication of your reasoning: If the wishes of the "host" make > all the difference as to whether the child lives or dies in the case of > the mother, does it also make that difference in the case of the state? > There are plenty of children who are wards of the state because no one > wants them or can take care of them. The state surely doesn't *want* them > either. We require that the state take care of them because of *who* these > kids are (humans), not *where* they are, how *old* they are, or who *wants* > to take care of them. But, according to your reasoning, if a child is > completely dependent on someone for survival (even temporarily) that someone > has the right to terminate the child's life. So, since the state is > the "host" to these children, can the state kill them, since nobody wants > them? "Surely the state doesn't *want* them"??? I didn't know that states could want. People can want, and states can legislate. As to the wards of the state, they are already born, are biologically dependent on no one {Digression: You seem to be confusing biological and physical dependence. Just because a baby of n-months cannot drive to the supermarket, buy freeze-dried tofu burgers (with Nutra-sweet(tm)!) drive home and microwave those puppies to mouth- watering blandness DOESN'T mean the kid is biologically dependent. The kid is physically dependent. But then most of us (at least the non- survivalists) fall into the same catagory, though to a lesser degree. End Digression.} We require the state to take care of them because of the chaos that would result if the state did not take care of them. And the reasoning of abortion is not "if a [!]child is completely dependent on someone for survival that someone has the right to terminate the [!]child's life." The reasoning [from my perspective] is: If a person is unwilling to face the physical and emotional dangers, and long-term financial problems, of birthing and raising a child, the fact that a !baby has already been formed is insufficient reason to force her to do so. From a more pragmatic viewpoint, women have always managed to have abortions, either invasively or chemically stimulated. Shouldn't we allow them the safest option? > > Again, the connection between CAN and SHOULD with regard to the protection > of an individual can only be made on the basis of who that individual *is*, > not on her circumstances. Because killing by abortion is justified by > the fetus' circumstance, it is inconsistent with the basis for human rights > we claim for humans who have been born. It's a double standard that doesn't > hold up. Either we drag the rest of humanity down and say the *every* human's >right to life depends not on the fact that they are human, but on circumstances > dictated by humans with power over them, or we acknowledge that if some > humans have the right to life, all do--equally. > Paul Dubuc cbdkc1!pmd See above. Abortion is not justified by the fetus' circumstances, but by the women's circumstances. The fetus is, is the opinion of some subset of the population of the United State, not yet a PERSON, and therefore not entitely to the full rights and responsibilities provided to and required of adult citizens of the U.S. Even arguing that it is, which is an arguable premise by itself, you then are in the non-enviable position of showing why it is a person, what rights it should be provided, (since it cannot have all the an adult has), and , most importantly, WHY it's rights supercede those of the woman. I realize you are trying to do this, but you haven't convinced me yet. But keep trying. If I was really closeminded, I wouldn't be reading this group! Sorry 'bout the length and the run-on sentences, Shakespeare I'm not. Tom Repa (trash@oliven) -- WATCH OUT! You might get what you're after. - T. Heads Path: {allegra,glacier,hplabs,ihnp4}!oliveb!oliven!trash
pmd@cbdkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) (10/06/86)
In article <49@oliveb.UUCP> trash@oliveb.UUCP (Tom Repa) writes: >... As for a two year >old being "completely dependent on some adult" the point is that the >two year old is dependent on _any_ adult (though I daresay it will like >some more than others), whereas the fetus is dependent on its biological >mother only. If you don't believe this, then I guess you DO believe that >women could send you 5-week since fertilization !babies in the mail, >and that you could care for them. I don't see why the fact that only one person can (temporarily) take care of a child gives that person absolute rights over the child's life. >> Another implication of your reasoning: If the wishes of the "host" make >> all the difference as to whether the child lives or dies in the case of >> the mother, does it also make that difference in the case of the state? >> There are plenty of children who are wards of the state because no one >> wants them or can take care of them. The state surely doesn't *want* them >> either. We require that the state take care of them because of *who* these >> kids are (humans), not *where* they are, how *old* they are, or who *wants* >> to take care of them. But, according to your reasoning, if a child is >> completely dependent on someone for survival (even temporarily) that someone >> has the right to terminate the child's life. So, since the state is >> the "host" to these children, can the state kill them, since nobody wants >> them? > "Surely the state doesn't *want* them"??? >I didn't know that states could want. People can want, and states can >legislate. Can it legislate to dispose of unwanted born children, since *only* the state can take care of them? >As to the wards of the state, they are already born, are >biologically dependent on no one {Digression: You seem to be confusing >biological and physical dependence. Just because a baby of n-months >cannot drive to the supermarket, buy freeze-dried tofu burgers (with >Nutra-sweet(tm)!) drive home and microwave those puppies to mouth- >watering blandness DOESN'T mean the kid is biologically dependent. The >kid is physically dependent. But then most of us (at least the non- >survivalists) fall into the same catagory, though to a lesser degree. >End Digression.} We require the state to take care of them because >of the chaos that would result if the state did not take care of them. Chaos? You mean having to let them die or having to kill them? Abortion is not chaos in that sense? The wards of state are in exactly the same position as the fetus. The dependence is complete whether or not it is biological or physical. (If a woman was alone on an island and found a baby washed up on its shores, alive, would she *have* to support him? Could she be held responsible for the child's death if she didn't?) >And the reasoning of abortion is not "if a [!]child is completely dependent >on someone for survival that someone has the right to terminate the >[!]child's life." The reasoning [from my perspective] is: If a person >is unwilling to face the physical and emotional dangers, and long-term >financial problems, of birthing and raising a child, the fact that >a !baby has already been formed is insufficient reason to force her to >do so. From a more pragmatic viewpoint, women have always managed >to have abortions, either invasively or chemically stimulated. >Shouldn't we allow them the safest option? Show me some consistent reasoning that applies only to the fetus in making her a human with no rights, not even a right to live, and I'll agree with you. I find it hard to believe that only some humans have a right not to be killed by others. So your suggestion about offering the "safest" option of abortion makes about as much sense to me as a suggestion to offer the safest method of child abuse, bigotry, or any other violation of basic human rights to anyone who is determined to do such. > Abortion is not justified by the fetus' circumstances, >but by the women's circumstances. It's the same set of circumstances, viewed only from another prespective. >The fetus is, is the opinion of some >subset of the population of the United State, not yet a PERSON, and >therefore not entitely to the full rights and responsibilities provided >to and required of adult citizens of the U.S. This was once the Supreme Court's opinion of Dred Scott. He was ruled not to be a person but to be property. He was not a U.S. citizen. Neither are blacks in South Africa. Their government doesn't recognize the rights we think they have. Who is right? Do humans have rights because they are humans or because other humans or their government say so? If the latter, then why all the fuss about South Africa's human rights violations? >Even arguing that it is, >which is an arguable premise by itself, you then are in the non-enviable >position of showing why it is a person, what rights it should be provided, >(since it cannot have all the an adult has), and , most importantly, WHY >it's rights supercede those of the woman. Without the right to live, you can't talk about any other rights. Recognizing that all humans have a right to life doesn't "supercede" the rights of anyone. It does qualify them, however, and put them on an equal basis. It certainly doesn't follow that because one can't have *all* the rights of a US citizen, she can't have any rights. -- Paul Dubuc cbdkc1!pmd
trash@oliveb.UUCP (Tom Repa) (10/07/86)
>=Paul Dubuc cbdkc1!pmd >>=Tom Repa > In article <49@oliveb.UUCP> trash@oliveb.UUCP (Tom Repa) writes: >>... As for a two year >>old being "completely dependent on some adult" the point is that the >>two year old is dependent on _any_ adult (though I daresay it will like >>some more than others), whereas the fetus is dependent on its biological >>mother only. If you don't believe this, then I guess you DO believe that >>women could send you 5-week since fertilization !babies in the mail, >>and that you could care for them. > > I don't see why the fact that only one person can (temporarily) take > care of a child gives that person absolute rights over the child's life. Because the !child is feeding off the womens blood stream, her lungs and her hormones, and is putting a great strain on her entire body. Childbirth is not a trivial procedure and it should not be forced no anyone without there consent. And no, having sex is NOT giving tacit consent. Sex <> pregnancy. It is a neccessary but insufficient condition for pregnancy. This should be a basic premise aknowledged by all adults: that no one should be able to force someone to do anything with their body that they don't want done. > Can it [the state] legislate to dispose of unwanted born children, > since *only* the state can take care of them? Who said only the state can care for them? Anyone _can_ care for them. Whether or not someone wants to is another matter. So since _anyone_ can care for them, since they are physically independent lifeforms, but no one _chooses_ to care for them, the state takes on that function. As an aside, why do want all these unwanted children to be born? Don't you think that it is better in the long run for the only children to be born are those that will be wanted and loved by their parent(s)? This, to me, is a morally defensibly position. >>As to the wards of the state, they are already born, are >>biologically dependent on no one {Digression: You seem to be confusing >>biological and physical dependence. Just because a baby of n-months >>cannot drive to the supermarket, buy freeze-dried tofu burgers (with >>Nutra-sweet(tm)!) drive home and microwave those puppies to mouth- >>watering blandness DOESN'T mean the kid is biologically dependent. The >>kid is physically dependent. But then most of us (at least the non- >>survivalists) fall into the same catagory, though to a lesser degree. >>End Digression.} We require the state to take care of them because >>of the chaos that would result if the state did not take care of them. > > Chaos? You mean having to let them die or having to kill them? Abortion > is not chaos in that sense? The wards of state are in exactly the > same position as the fetus. The dependence is complete whether or > not it is biological or physical. (If a woman was alone on an island > and found a baby washed up on its shores, alive, would she *have* to > support him? Could she be held responsible for the child's death if > she didn't?) No abortion is not chaos. "The wards of the state are in exactly the same position as the fetus"???? You mean orphan children are put inside the womb of the state? The dependence of a child on a supporting body may be complete, but the point is, _again_, that anyone, single parent, couple, private orphanage or public orphanage can can for the child. This is not the case for a small blob of replicating cells that does not have a cerebral system. Ony its mother can care for it. ( Yet. If embryonic research continues, this too may change.) > Show me some consistent reasoning that applies only to the fetus in > making her a human with no rights, not even a right to live, and I'll > agree with you. I find it hard to believe that only some humans have > a right not to be killed by others. So your suggestion about offering > the "safest" option of abortion makes about as much sense to me as a > suggestion to offer the safest method of child abuse, bigotry, or any > other violation of basic human rights to anyone who is determined to > do such. Again the point must be made that the fetus, in my veiwpoint, is not yet a human being in the sense that it has not yet enough of a brain to be concious. If you want to call me a Nazi for having this viewpoint, go ahead. So the fetus is a human but not yet a human being. Therefore it gets no rights. Even if it was a human being, it does not have the right to use a womans body without her consent. We cannot allow women to become slaves to bits of embryonic matter. > Without the right to live, you can't talk about any other rights. Recognizing > that all humans have a right to life doesn't "supercede" the rights of > anyone. It does qualify them, however, and put them on an equal basis. > It certainly doesn't follow that because one can't have *all* the rights of > a US citizen, she can't have any rights. > Paul Dubuc cbdkc1!pmd In regard to the Dred Scott reference, this has nothing to do with my arguments since I freely admit that once a human being is an independent entity, it is protected from arbitrary extermination. This is not the case with the fetus. Tom Repa (trash@oliven) -- Remember what the Doorknob said:"Feed your head." Path: {allegra,glacier,hplabs,ihnp4}!oliveb!oliven!trash