From: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Clark University
Date: 8 JAN 93 15:35:59 GMT

In a previous article, stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) wrote:
>In article <17DEC92.14494300@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>|In a previous article, stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) wrote:
>|>How are they different?  To kill a new born child is unquestionably
>|>murder.*  What happened in the few hours of the birthing process the
>|>unborn child into a person?  
>|
>|Before the birthing process the fetus is using and living inside a woman's 
>|body.  After birth it becomes an independent, legal person, no longer 
>|occupying a woman's body.  It's a significant difference.
> 
>True (except that a newborn is not "independent"), but the difference
>is not in the child (which I use here for both the born and unborn),
>but in his surroundings.

A newborn is not dependent on just one person.  A whole range of people can 
provide whatever care a newborn needs.  If one person doesn't want to care for 
him/her, someone else can.  If a pregnant woman doesn't want to take care of a 
fetus, can someone else do it for her?  It's more than just the surroundings.  
Consider the damage and health risks associated with having a fetus inside 
you.  Raising a newborn carries none of the same risks.

>|>Where in the changes from conception to adulthood does the concepta
>|>become a person?  There is no bright line, no change we can point to
>|>that clearly marks this boundary, except conception.  
>|
>|Why not birth?  Seems like a very "bright line" to me.
> 
>Why birth?  What about the fetus himself has changed?  Principally only
>that, after birth, he must breath for himself.  He is still dependent on
>others for food (although I'll admit it needn't come from the mother
>now, she is still legally responsible) and all other needs.

Do you think conception is clearly marked?  How do you determine the exact 
moment of conception?  Consider this - If conception takes place inside a 
woman using an IUD, and the product of conception is washed away two weeks 
later as a result of the IUD, has a person been killed?  Is this murder?

>No I'm not.  If the unborn child is a person, then the mother may not
>simply kill him for any non-vital rights she claims the child is
>violating.  You can't kill a house-guest just because he has overstayed
>his welcome and doesn't want to leave and you think he is violating your
>rights.

You can take all kinds of other actions to remove that house guest.  Call the 
police and have them remove him.  In early abortions, there is no way to 
remove a fetus without killing it.  By the way, an unwanted fetus is doing a 
lot more than just overstaying its welcome.  It is posing health risks to the 
woman, and the woman is faced with a risk of death greater than zero for as 
long as the fetus is inside her.

>|If these fetuses were turning in to babies in an artificial 
>|womb I'd agree with your arguement.  If a fetus is using a woman's body 
>|against her will, there is a significant difference between that fetus and 
>|your typical born person.
> 
>The child is still an imposition on the parents after birth.  Adoption
>is possible, but not always.
> 
>In any case, there is no difference in the fetus in your two examples. 
>If it is wrong to kill the fetus in one case, it is wrong in both. 
>Likewise, if it is ok in one, it is ok in both.

I've pointed out some of the differences.  

				.... Heather.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,a