NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/philosop/misc/3485

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-29 | 1.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!spool.mu.edu!olivea!pagesat!spssig.spss.com!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!hippee
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Abortion (was Vegetarianism)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:07:25 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services
Lines: 25

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jim Kalb) writes:
> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>The only question for me concerns the apparent choice which one has when
>>one becomes "infected" with this particular parasite [an unborn child].
>>I would, however, beg to remind anyone who would challenge on these
>>grounds that would remove the lice from their hair, the worms from their
>>dogs, and the ticks from their cat.
>
> Your reminder would dispose of the matter if it were unreasonable to
> believe that the unborn child is of more value than a louse, a worm or a
> tick.  Is that your view?
> --
> Jim Kalb ([e-mail])
> "Alles Erworbne bedroht die Maschine, solange
> sie sich erdreistet, im Geist, statt im Gehorchen, zu sein."  (Rilke)

My position is that a human life is no MORE worth any other.  The point,
however, does not hinge on this.  Instead, the point is that the individual
who is doing the living on someone else (the parasite) should have the
permission to do so or face the prospect of an attempt by the host to be
removed.  This is nothing more than is performed for any parasite.  We don't
know if the parasite even suspects, nor do we care. We merely remove it.  How
can someone require another to anything less be the parasite a louse, a worm,
a tick, or a human fetus?