NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/abortion/57698

Text File | 1993-01-24 | 3.4 KB | 78 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!mcochran
From: [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
    of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
    control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Sender: [e-mail] (netnews admin account)
Organization: None worth mentioning.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 18:28:31 GMT
Lines: 63

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ray Fischer) writes:
>[e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran) writes ...
>> [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>> [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>In order to have bodily autonomy, it is first necessary to be a
>>>>person.
>>>
>>>This is a ridiculous statement. All living organisms have varying degrees of
>>>bodily autonomy. Only some of those organisms have their bodily autonomy
>>>legally protected.
>>>
>>Since this is talk.abortion Kebbin, it should be self evident to any
>>thinking person that the bodily autonomy mentioned is specifically
>>that of a person, and legally protected. But if it'll make you happy,
>>here:
>>In order to have bodily autonomy, as it relates to legal protection
>>and the issue of abortion, it is first neecessary to be a person.
>
>Which leads to the inevitable question: what is it about birth that
>turns a fetus into a person?
>
Which can be argued into eternity, since 'personhood' is a state which
has a different meaning to each of us.
However, you might consider the obvious, in that after birth, there is
no longer a need to derive sustenance directly from the bodily
resources of the mother. You migth also consider the major
physiological changes that take place at birth.

>The legal argument isn't a useful one, as it can be argued that laws
>protect existing rights, and don't create rights.
>
I'm notarguing law, am I?

>The biological arguments are not relevent to the personhood issue (or
>at least, haven't been shown to be).  The the fetus is inside another
>person doesn't necessarily mean it isn't a person.  As far as I've
>been able to tell, that alone it not enough to determine or prevent
>personhood.
>
Rather depends on your definition of 'person' doesn't it Ray? Mine
happens to include a certain minimum level of self-support not
possible within the womb.

>>Happy now Kibble?
>>My language may have been 'loose' Kebin, but at least I'll correct it.
>>Are you now ready to admit that you were incorrect in your usage of the
>>word 'schizophrenia' instead of 'mpd'? If not, you are simply
>>displaying your hypocrisy again.
>
>Is this in any way relevent?  Or are you just resorting to a pointless
>ad hominem attack?
>
It's relevent to another thread, and being carried over to here. If
you have a problem with that, I suggest you hit N instead of reading
it. Nor is it in any way ad hominem, since the facts are correct. It
is merely an attempt to get Kibble to correct his own word choice in
the same manner he insists others correct theirs.

--
                  Mark Cochran          [e-mail]
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.