NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/abortion/58068

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-27 | 5.2 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!hela.iti.org!usc!cs.utexas.edu!news
From: [e-mail] (Paul Brinkley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 27 Jan 1993 18:05:10 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Lines: 100
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sahara.cs.utexas.edu

Boy, just got through reading all these articles, and then someone's
already coming along and replying to my first ones.  I guess I don't
mind, though.  :)

Oh, and I believe it was you, Muriel, who wrote that "unborn child" has
too high an emotional content in another thread.  (Was it you?)

"Well, you're wrong.  You just _think_ that."

:-)

Seriously, if you consider it an emotional buzzword, I'll refrain from
using it.  "Z/e/f" will serve just fine; hopefully no one finds _that_
emotional...

In article <[e-mail]] [e-mail] (Muriel Nelson) writes:
]In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Brinkley) writes:
]>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Muriel Nelson) writes:
]>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Brinkley) writes:
]>
]I don't think the z/e/f has rights.  Nature aborts
]more than half of all fertilized eggs.  I don't
]think such an iffy entity should have the right to
]exist at the expense of someone else's resources.

Hmm.  I am aware of the still-born cases, but I'm pretty sure they don't
cover half.  I am also aware that many fertilized eggs fail to implant
themselves in the placental wall, and on those grounds I would be willing
to concede that a z/e/f (just zygote in this case?) would not be entitled
to any liberties until implantation.  Are these the only cases?  Any
medical nerds out there?  Steve Matheson?  Mark Cochran?

]>If you do not believe that that unborn child is an alive American citizen,
]>though, I can see how argument would hold.  Is this your position?
]>
]A z/e/f is, of course, alive.  It's not a citizen until
]birth.  The Constitution is rather clear on that.

If so, I will definitely have to change my stance considerably.  Could
you please supply the passage(s) in the Constitution that provide for this?

]>>>Perhaps what I should have said is that they should have the same
]>>>protection under the law as everyone else, rather than the same liberties/
]>>>rights.
]>>>If you see a problem in THAT statement, let me know.  I'm struggling with
]>>>this issue the same as the rest of you...
]>>I do see a problem.  Give fetuses the same protections
]>>as 'everyone else', and you automatically place pregnant
]>>women in a category where they enjoy fewer rights than
]>>all other born persons, and they have _less_ protection
]>>under the law than 'everyone else'.
]>>
]>>That's unacceptable.
]>
]>Again, if you give pregnant women the full rights normally entitled to them,
]>you would automatically place unborn children in a category where they enjoy
]>no rights whatsoever, no protection under the law.  That seems even more
]>unacceptable.
]
]Not to me.  But then, I value women just as much as I
]value 'everyone else'.  Do you think a woman is _more_
]different from you than an embryo?

To be truthful, I think that the differences between me and a woman, and
the differences between me and an embryo, are themselves different.  (If
that makes any sense.)  But I can see what you're getting at, I think:
that a woman has more "person qualities" than an embryo does.  (By
"person qualities", I mean those qualities upon which rights and liberties
in the U.S. Constitution and in U.S. code are based.  I admit I have only
a fuzzy notion of exactly what those qualities are; perhaps _that_ topic
would be best addressed in a different thread.)  If this is what you
meant, then I must reply that such any deficiencies in legal
qualifications of the z/e/f appear to be insubstantial to me, so far,
given the evidence available to me.  If you were to answer that this is
my opinion, you would be absolutely right.  If I were to suggest any
approach to the issue based on the above, I would probably say:  vote on
it.

]>However, you did say "born", which puts your argument on different ground.
]>Is it your position that unborn humans are entitled to no protection?
]>
]I think a z/e/f is entitled to as much protection as
]the host wants to give it, and is able to give it.  I
]personally would find it immoral to carry a fetus to
]term without paying proper attention to diet, prenatal
]care, etc.  I would find it much less immoral to abort.

Which reminds me.  The concept of "moral", in concrete terms, is fuzzy to
me, to, if you know what I mean.  (I'd look it up, but again, the nearest
dictionary is several buildings away...)  If you asked me right now, I
suppose it would be "whatever causes happiness to other life".  Or
something like that.  Do you have any definitions of your own?

That's pretty much it; three questions, and a couple of arguments.  I
look forward to your or anyone else's answers to the former...

Paul Brinkley
[e-mail]
Pro-Thought Advocate