NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/abortion/58337

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-28 | 3.2 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!opl.com!hri.com!spool.mu.edu!caen!umeecs!umn.edu!noc.msc.net!uc.msc.edu!raistlin!timbuk.cray.com!hemlock.cray.com!mon
From: [e-mail] (Muriel Nelson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:49:12 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 61
Nntp-Posting-Host: hemlock

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:
>>>
>>>You've got a good point.  I could say, "Well, if they WANT to, LET them
>>>assemble!"  :)  Of course, that would be ludicrous.
>>>
>>Yes.  It might be worth exploring _why_ it's ludicrous.
>>Even if fetuses had such desires and were capable of
>>communicating them, it would be imposssible to grant
>>them such a right without removing the rights of the
>>women involved to move about as they please.
>
>Similarly, it would be impossible to grant a pregnant mother the right to
>abort without removing the "right" of the unborn child to exist and make its
>way to maturity.  We are right back to choosing between two rights.
>
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.

>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.

>>>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?

>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.

muriel
standard disclaimer