From: smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What REALLY pisses me off about the Pro-Abortionists
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:37:32 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1d98rjINN20n@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>ATTENTION!  CROSSED WIRE ALERT!   
>
>I'm not in favour of anti-abortion legislation Brian.  Carry on.


>
>In article <1992Nov4.152704.17296@netcom.com: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
[Lots deleted of Frank and Brian debating fetal personhood.]

>:we agree to _everything_ you want, and recognize fetuses as persons as
>:much as you and I are people.  A fetus would then have as much right
>:to use a woman's body as you and I have a right to use her body, correct?
>
>Absolutely correct, which is to say, no right at all.  So why in heaven's
>name do people have such a problem in acknowledging the humanity of z/e/f's?
>
>Why have you invented this arbitrary and unneccessary subdivison of
>humanity?

Well I know I am late to the party, but I wanted to jump in here too.
Frank, when you talk about recognizing a z/e/f as a legal person I 
am curious what rights exactly are you trying to confer on them.  
Just off the top of my head I have thought of several rights which
persons have which I for one think would be inappropriate or impractical
to grant to z/e/f's.  Keep in mind that there can be ex utero as well
as in utero z/e/f.  There are many z/e/f which were created through
the process of in vitro fertilization and yet will never be implanted.
Would it be legal to dispose of these "spares"?  Would a court order and/or
a death certificate be required?  If they cannot be disposed of and they 
aren't implanted, what are we to do with them?  Keep them on ice 
indefinitely?  Who pays for this throughout perpetuity?  The parents
and their born and living progeny or the state (i.e the taxpayers)?

Now maybe it's just because I am a CapitalistSwine, but when I think of the 
rights that persons have (as opposed to the rights of other entities)
one of the first that jumps to my mind is the right to own and
inherit property.  Now if we treat a z/e/f the same as a born child
for the tax and property purposes, I can see whole host of troubles
developing.  Would parents be allowed to deduct z/e/f as dependents on 
their tax returns?  Would it make a difference if they were living in
a womb or in a petri dish in a freezer?  What proof of existance would be
required (a social security number and therefore a birth certificate are
what is required now)?  Could a z/e/f own property?   Right now a z/e/f
can be an heir *only* on the condition that the pregnancy results in a 
live birth.  This restriction doesn't make much sense if there is no
difference in the legal standing of a baby and a z/e/f.  

In this country, persons also have the right to not be imprisoned unless they 
have been charged or convicted of a crime (and if charged they have the right 
to a speedy trial).  It seems to me that if z/e/f were persons, it would be 
impossible to imprison any pregnant woman without violating the civil rights 
of the z/e/f she carried.  And since it is difficult to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that a given woman is not pregnant, it may be tough to
imprison women in general.  (Why does this image of a gang of pregnant
women rampaging on a crime spree as they laugh with impunity in the face of 
authority jump to mind? :-)

I am sure there are many more complications that would arise, these are
just a few.  One solution to these problems would to create another class
of personhood with some of the rights and resposibilities of "real" 
persons, but in my opinion, that solution would set a very dangerous
and potentially damaging precedent.  The situation as it stands may
not be the most compassionate, but I think it is the most workable. 

Sarah McCabe
Newsgroups: talk.abortion