From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Harmless Slavery"
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:03:31 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA


JH>In article <1992Apr6.162732.3920@macc.wisc.edu> heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM) writes:
jk>In article <29359@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>, keegan@sungod.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes...

jk>well then, it's good that dan corrected you. personhood of the
jk>fetus is only an issue when a prolifer is looking for an agruing
jk>point. the issue is a woman's right to self-determination, her
jk>right to control her body. those who try to make the issue
jk>something else usually do so because they have no way to deal
jk>with the issue of controlling women.

JH>This is untrue.  For most people a woman's right to self-determination
JH>is self evident.  I promise that I am not, have never, and will never
JH>be in favor of limitting a woman's right to self-determination unless
JH>I feel I have to.  You have nothing but my word on this.  Since you
JH>don't know me I guess that's not worth much.  Never the less, it's the
JH>truth.

I really don't believe to many people the woman's right to
self-determination is self evident.  I read many people who say that if we
are un-clear of the state of the fetus we should ensure it's safety.
When they argue this way, they completely eliminate the issue of the
woman.  In most every single case of abortion there is a living, breathing
fully aware woman.  Yet many pro-lifers find it much easier to resolve
the abortion debate by ignoring this woman.

I believe you when you say you do not wish to remove the woman's right
to self-determination.  It just makes me wonder why you are undecided.
It seems to me that you should be pro-choice if you believe this
very strongly.

JH>You chose to delete the part of the message in which I explain why I
JH>think it's *the* issue.  I am not if favor of abortion on demand up to
JH>the moment of delivery.  (I had thought that this is something most
JH>people would agree with.)  It seems incredible to me that anyone might
JH>think that a (Geez what word can I use?  Fetus?  Baby?) fetus/baby
JH>becomes a human being at the instant his big toe exits the womb.
JH>Clearly he's entitled to *some* protection before that.

I am against restrictions on abortion during any time the fetus
exists inside the woman.  That does not mean I am in favor of on-demand
3rd tri-mester abortions.  I just do not believe that a problem exists
with women getting 3rd tri-mester abortions for what I would consider
trivial reasons, and I have trouble imagining legislation that would
attempt to deal with on-demand third tri-mester abortions that would
not hamper women with legitimate reasons for wanting or needing a
third tri-mester abortions.  If you wish to convince me that third
tri-mester abortions should be legislated, either explain to me how
this is a problem needing a resolution or explain what your legislation
will look like to deal with what you consider a problem.  Until I
have either of those questions answered, I think it is silly and
dangerous to try to legislate this non-problem.

JH>It is rational, therefore, to believe that we as a society have to
JH>place *some* limits on a woman's right to self-determination.  Not
JH>because we're looking for ways to 'enslave' women but because we want
JH>to protect what we believe are humans in need of protection.

I fail to see your rational.  You want to protect some un-known number
of fetus that you seem to feel are not being protected while at the
same time making it more difficult for women with legitimate reasons
for requiring a third tri-mester abortion.  Unless you have some
magical legislation that will fairly distinguish between the two
cases, I will oppose your trying to restrict women's right to
self-determination.

JH>So, the question becomes "When does the fetus start deserving
JH>protection?"  I don't believe that there are any logical arguments
JH>that can be made for protecting a fertilized egg.  (Though I do
JH>recognize the religious arguments I don't subscribe to them.)  The
JH>argument that a fetus deserves protection no sooner that when it
JH>developes a cerebral cortex seems reasonable to me.  I'm been watching
JH>for a reasonable rebuttal to that one.  (Maybe no logically based
JH>rebuttal is possible.  If so I'll have to change my signature.)

Propose your legislation that will protect a fetus once the cerebral
cortex is developed.  Tell us how you will judge when the cerebral
cortex has developed.  Let us know how many fetus this legislation
will actually protect.  Only then can we make a judgement on the
logic of your argument.

JH>PS. I think you are so used to arguing with religious fanatics that
JH>you don't recognize an open mind (I hope) when you see one.

I believe you are close to about the same point I was a year or so
ago.  I would like to see some of your answers to the questions
above.  We are dealing with a real problem in a real world and I would
love to see your real solutions.

JH>John G. Heim                                 Email:  heim@macc.wisc.edu
JH>[Undecided and so open minded that my brain is drafty.  :-) ]

Dan King

p.s. John, I previously I posted an article asking you some questions
regarding how far you would be willing to take protecting this fetus
assuming it met your criteria for personhood.  Did you see the post?
I never saw any reply.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion