From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 17:04:34 GMT

Peter Nyikos writes:
>Brian Kendig writes:
>>Yes, it's unique -- but you could use this same argument for saying
>>that one given dog is unique from any other dog, so why should we let
>>the SPCA put dogs to sleep just because they've been there too long
>>without having anyone want them?
>
>Well, it just so happens that killing dogs is not considered murder.
>Killing humans is, once they are safely out of the womb.  We pro-lifers
>believe that we can afford to extend protection to those inside the
>womb, but extending the right to life to animals is not a part of
>our culture.

Okay, I think I see your point.  My opinion is that we _can't_ afford
to extend protection to those inside the womb, because doing so would
be an abridgement of women's rights for the sake of something which I
honestly don't feel is worth the implications involved.  You're
entitled to your opinion as much as I'm entitled to mine.

>There is a deeper consideration than this, though.  It is the fact
>that humans, unless very severely retarded, can lead richer lives by
>reason of their greater intelligence than almost all animals.  There
>is some possibility of whales, dolphins, and elephants being exceptions,
>so I am against the killing of them too, except to protect human life.

Ah, this is the first GOOD reason I've heard in favor of pro-life.
Thank you.  But there are still problems involved: Where do you draw
the line to say who or what is capable of "leading a richer life" and
who is not?  Why are you qualified to draw the line, and not someone
else who has a different opinion?

Also, consider that in many cases, forcing a woman to give birth might
affect her own ability to "lead a richer life".  I believe that it's
more important to make sure that the people alive on this planet right
now have every opportunity to them to live the kind of lives they want
to live, before we bring more life into the world.  I understand your
argument; I just don't agree with it.

>>  The only reason why it seems you accept putting
>>unwanted animals to sleep but you support forcing mothers to carry
>>unwanted fetuses to term is that the human fetus has human DNA.
>
>If you took such liberties in putting words into Adrienne's mouth,
>she'd put you in your place, if you happened to be arguing with her.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth; I'm trying to understand
your position -- hence why I used the word 'seems'.  I'm not out to
get you; I honestly want to know your reasoning.

You've shown me that it's "potential fulfillment", not "human DNA",
that is the basis for your choice.  Am I correct?

>>I'm NOT trying to be facetious here.  Why, exactly, do you regard
>>human DNA as the key to moral worth?  Are there features of humanity
>>that distinguish humanity from lower life?  Do you understand why some
>>of us are trying to define exactly what these features are, and to
>>decide whether or not a human life in its fetal stage can be said to
>>possess these features?
>
>Part of the point is that it WILL develop these features; the other,
>in my system, is that it HAS the bare rudiments for there to be
>"someone home" LONG before birth.  To deprive that "someone home"
>the chance to become one of us is appalling to me.

Okay, this makes sense.  My opinion, though, is that "it WILL develop
these features" doesn't mean "it has these features NOW," and that
there is a long period of time between conception and the first
glimmer of "someone home".  And it feels equally appalling to me to
chain a woman to something that will eventually become significant,
but isn't yet.

How "LONG before birth" does a fetus show signs of there being
"someone home"?  Would you please provide your logic for this conclusion?

>>>Whether the woman thought it was wrong or right to have the child doesn't
>>>change the child.  The unborn child has a right to life just as the mother
>>>has a right to live.
>
>>Yes, but
>
>After this came a long list, all of which negated the "Yes."  So
>I think it would have been more appropriate to say "No, because"
>despite the fact that Kendig does think the unborn child has as
>much right to live as a cat; in other words, next to none.

No; you're misrepresenting my position, or else I might have stated it
badly.

I feel that the unborn ought to be allowed to live.  If there are no
good reasons why it shouldn't be, then let it be born, and let it live
its life.

But "ought to live" isn't very binding.  If the mother has some good
reason not to give birth -- and I believe she's the only person
qualified to make that decision for herself, and it's not a decision
that I've ever heard taken lightly -- then she should legally be
allowed to exercise her choice.

The fetus should be allowed to live -- unless it interferes with a
woman's right to live a "richer life".  And there's no way to
legislate that.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau