From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: Another right to not
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 09:52:46 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

In article <1992Sep8.104542.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>In article <whnnlhd@lynx.unm.edu>, bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>>  The fact that she isn't a
>> doctor and didn't finish high school isn't necessarily an indication
>> that she doesn't know the biological status of a fetus.

>  It indicates that her opinion is unevaluated, as dhe clearly lacks
>the tools to verify whether what she reads or sees on television is
>accurate or not. She may believe (even accuratly), but she cannot
>KNOW, as knowledge requires a factual base, not just a popular
>mythos.

Are you a medical doctor?  If not, how can you the biological status
of anything?

I agree that not finishing high school may make more more likely to be
deficient in certain areas of logic and reason, but that hardly
guarantees it.

>>   Ending the life of
>> somebody already born is not the same as ending the life of a fetus.

>  That is entirely an arbitrary decision. It's like in "Logan's
>Run" when everyone over 30 is executed. It's a convenience for the
>overall society, set at the "optimum" termination age. Doesn't mean
>they really deserve to die, or that they don't feel it. It's
>just what's expedient.

Actually, it was 21, but they couldn't get a bunch of "minor" actors
to play the part and still work within budget (child labor laws and
all that) so they changed it to 30.

And it wasn't for "convenience."  It was because, at the time, there
was no way to take care of all the people if they all lived to their
maximum possible age (there was a nuclear holocaust and everyone lived
inside a dome...at least, in the movie they did...in the book, it was
more just a matter of overpopulation and governmental control...no
domes.)  However, conditions had changed at that was no longer true.

And there are few people who would consider abortion a matter of
"convenience."  It isn't something people do on a whim.

>  This whole idea that the foetus cannot possibly feel anything is
>shaped and promoted through political necessity.

Who said that a fetus doesn't feel anything?  "Unreliable" doesn't
mean tht nothing gets through.

>This dehumanization
>is so total that we, as a nation, are very concerned with the possible pain
>felt by our worst criminals as they are executed, while blithly assuming 
>that a foetus cannot feel it's own death.

You're going to have to define what it is to be a human that separates
us from other beings that we kill without a second thought.

How does this relate to soc.*men?  Simple:  There are those that state
that there's something "intrinsic" about maleness and femaleness that
causes the other sex to be incapable of understanding what the other
has to go through.  Do I agree?  In part...there are, indeed,
biological differences between the sexes and I wouldn't be too
surprised if some of them had to do to consciousness.  Thus, only when
those things are defined can one make policies that affect only one
sex but not the other (F'rinstance, the final decision on whether or
not a pregnant woman is going to carry the child to term is hers since
she is the one who is pregnant.)

In truth, the question comes down to whether or not the fetus has the
right to the use of the mother's womb without her consent.

-- 
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
Newsgroups: soc.women