From: heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM	)
Subject: Re: "Harmless Slavery"
Organization:  University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center
Date:  7 APR 92 09:12:13    

In article <1992Apr7.012438.4785@midway.uchicago.edu>, eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes...

>In article <1992Apr6.162732.3920@macc.wisc.edu>
>heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM	) writes:
> 
>>I promise that I am not, have never, and will never 
>>be in favor of limitting a woman's right to self-determination unless 
>>I feel I have to.
> 
>Pro-lifers who would forbid abortion from fertilization would say the
>exact same thing, I suspect.

Irrelevant.

>>You have nothing but my word on this.  Since you 
>>don't know me I guess that's not worth much.  Never the less, it's the 
>>truth.
> 
>I believe you.  I just don't think that means much.

Well, some people have said that men who favor limits on abortion 
rights just want to oppress women.  In fact, I think that's how this 
thread started.

>>You chose to delete the part of the message in which I explain why I 
>>think it's *the* issue.  I am not if favor of abortion on demand up to 
>>the moment of delivery.  (I had thought that this is something most 
>>people would agree with.)  It seems incredible to me that anyone might 
>>think that a (Geez what word can I use?  Fetus?  Baby?) fetus/baby 
>>becomes a human being at the instant his big toe exits the womb.  
>>Clearly he's entitled to *some* protection before that.
> 
>The argument (which I personally do not agree with) is that the
>woman's right to freedom takes precedence over the fetus's right to
>life, even if the fetus is a person.
> 
>>It is rational, therefore, to believe that we as a society have to 
>>place *some* limits on a woman's right to self-determination.  Not 
>>because we're looking for ways to 'enslave' women but because we want 
>>to protect what we believe are humans in need of protection.
> 
>It only makes sense if you think that life is more important than
>freedom.  Some people don't.

Some people might beliewe that for *them*, *their* life is more important 
than *their* freedom.  But they have no right to decide this for other 
people.  You can't generalize the statement that freedom is more 
important than life.  (Though it certainly would decrease our prison 
population.)  

>>So, the question becomes "When does the fetus start deserving 
>>protection?"  I don't believe that there are any logical arguments 
>>that can be made for protecting a fertilized egg.  (Though I do 
>>recognize the religious arguments I don't subscribe to them.)  The 
>>argument that a fetus deserves protection no sooner that when it 
>>developes a cerebral cortex seems reasonable to me.  I'm been watching 
>>for a reasonable rebuttal to that one.  (Maybe no logically based 
>>rebuttal is possible.  If so I'll have to change my signature.)
> 
>I personally think that the earliest possible moment is when
>myelination (myelin sheathing around axons of nerve cells which
>increases speed and decreases signal loss) starts in the fetus's
>brain.

This seems reasonable too.  I was going to ask you when this occurs 
but I've decided not to believe anything I read in t.a.  (Not that I 
think you'd make stuff up - but it's better to do a little research.)

John G. Heim                                 Email:  heim@macc.wisc.edu
[Undecided and indecisive.  :-) ]