From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: HR 4983
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:45:06 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <6976@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>I'm not saying it's not human. I'm saying it's not a child. They are two
>separate stages of development, and it is not possible for the same being to
>be in both.

Before the 60's, unborn babies where just "babies" - the same kind of
"babies" as we refer to when we look at a 6 week old.  The distinction
"fetus" versus "child" is NEW.  It only exists to objectify the child
into a non-human lump of tissue.

>>Cover your eyes and you can kill anything you want.  Is that the message
>>you are trying to convey?
>
>No, the message is that you can see a child. You can't see a fetus without
>those technological marvels I was talking about.

So if you are blind, there are no children?

>No, she knows that she can feel a fetus inside of her.

So if you don't know there is a child inside of her, you can kill it
but she can't?

>It's a human, but it's not a person. People aren't biological parasites.
>Fetuses are. What's so difficult about that concept?

Because the concept of "parasite" is a modern invention.  It's the same
kind of game as plantation owners calling negro slaves "uncivilized
savages."  A newborn can't defend itself or provide for its own care.
But if you were to claim that a parent can kill their 6 week old infant,
you'd be laughed back to the 1800's when that was perfectly legal.

>Any fetus that demonstrates that it can survive without that parasitic
>attachment to the host mother becomes a child by virtue of that demonstration.
>I wouldn't object to the attending physician being required to take all steps
>reasonably possible to insure that the fetus removed from the mother has every
>chance at survival. That requirement, though, cannot be allowed to override
>the mother's right to terminate that parasitic relationship whenever she
>desires.

Oh please, you can't keep repeating that the child is a parasite!  Until
you can demonstrate that a 6 week old can be legally taken into the desert
by its mother and left for dead, this argument is completely bogus.

	"Why, I wanted to demonstrate that the child didn't have a
	 parasitic attachment to the host mother."

>Once again, you're missing (or deliberately ignoring) the point: There is no
>biological requirement that that specific person has to bring the kid back. If
>the mother does not wish to do so, then another person can be sent, and the
>same results - the survival of the child - will occur. The same is not true of
>a host mother during pregnancy.

Let me get this straight.

Mother goes to desert.
Mother calls someone to get the child.
Mother abandons child in the desert.
Other person gets to desert and finds child dead.

Who is guilty of murder?  Or is this just the mother determining that the
child does not have a parasitic dependence on the particular individual?

>>We've done this argument before.  Calling a human child a "parasite" is
>>about as far fetched as this argument goes.
>
>Well, except that it fits the scientific definition of such. I am trying to
>recognize a basic biological fact. You are not.

A human child is no more a parasite than a cow eating grass in a field has
a parasitic relationship to that pasture.  A parasite is a specific type of
organism.  A tapeworm is a parasite - it gets into your stomach and set up
house.  A child is the result of sexual reproduction.  Biologically there
is a universe of difference.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | Vida en La Republica de Tejas:
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  A Tejana woman, after spending the rent
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  money on the Tejas Lottery - "I can't go
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |  home, my husband will beat me up."