From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1992 22:09:46 GMT

In article <92100.153835JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu> Joy Haftel <JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Apr09.153722.11293@sdd.hp.com>, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com
>(Adrienne Regard) says:
>I am not talking about "potential lives".  I am talking about real lives.
>Unless you wish to argue that a fetus is not alive?

No, I do think that fetuses are alive.  

But I am questioning the 'worth' of that life if it were to become a
restriction upon the life of another.

>The question I am asking myself and all of you, is this:  Is it better to
>be alive or dead, and why?

Depends.  Alive NOW, in the US, better than death.  Alive 600 years ago
in middle europe?  I'm not so sure.  Alive at the cost of enslaving my
mother against her will?  Better to be dead.

I don't think this simple question leads us anywhere in particular either.

>>I'm not being flippant, Joy.  I am asking you what DIFFERENCE it makes
>>that a fetus has a full compliment of DNA and an egg doesn't, that
>>MANY fertilized (therefore "full genetic human")eggs DON'T implant, and
>>that people die in accidents.
>
>It's the difference between accident and premeditation.

As long as we are examining questions that might not get us anywhere, lets
look at some more:

1.  If accidents account for 100 deaths, and premeditation for 1, which does
it make more sense to work against?

2.  If accidents account for 100 deaths, and we can replace those dead through
premeditated acts, should we?


>>What DIFFERENCE does this make to the woman who happens to have excellent
>>reasons *not* to be pregnant?   Why do your responses above *mean* anything?
>>Why should they be considered by women to be important things?
>
>If the woman has excellent reasons not to be pregnant (and there are many,
>as I posted in my article replying to Ron Bense), then it is legal for
>her to have an abortion.  This does not change the fact that *she is taking
>an innocent human life*. 

Well, shoot.  

If you aren't discussing legislation, I apologize. 

I still don't happen to agree -- I think it's a good reason to prevent an
abortion in the future because abortion is too risky a procedure to litely
undergo, but even that isn't really *my* call to make.

I also don't happen to buy the concept of "innocent life", but really, it
doesn't matter that you and I might disagree on the particulars if we are
generally in agreement that the government is not the best body to be making
such decisions for it's populace.

I don't happen to subscribe to the concepts of "guilty life", so I don't
see the point of labeling feti as "innocent".  But that's picking nits.

>[I asked why is a fetus expendable and a newborn not]
>>>(I think you'll say it has something to do with the woman who
>>>carries the fetus in her body.  But let us assume this child would
>>>be a newborn who requires frequent nursing and constant attention)
>
>>Let's not.  I think there is an intensely important difference between
>>a fetus within a woman's body, and a newborn in any condition.  And that
>>difference is a woman.  Let us not "conveniently" exclude the woman from
>>our argument in order to make things "easier".  She is the one who has
>>to pay for our convenient argument.....
>
>I purposely didn't exclude the woman, Adrienne, because your argument
>about the invisible woman (while repetitive at times) has made a great
>impression on me.  However, that does not alter the fact that women are
>in most cases the primary caregivers for children and that they alone
>can nurse children (and in some places this is the only way to feed new-
>borns and is often healthier for the baby than bottle feeding).  The
>case I set up exists.  Let us assume the pregnancy poses little risk to
>the woman's health.  Why is the fetus expendable and the newborn not?

I'm not willing for "us" to assume anything toward any random woman.  It's
not my business.  But let me just say this about 'expendable'.  

(And let me also take this moment to reapologise for using your posting
as a jumping off point.  If you aren't trying to legislate, then you and
I have no quarrel -- none -- and I'm taking this opportunity to ramble a
little about some of the concepts I believe are important about life and
liberty.  You may or may not agree, and I'm perfectly content that it should
be so.)

To one way of thinking, MOST *people* are expendable.  It really probably
wouldn't hurt our societies, or our planet one bit to have, say 15 to 20% 
of the population just disappear tomorrow.  It isn't 'expendability' or the
lack of 'expendability' which is being exercised either in law (against
the murder of newborns) or in practice (the abortion of fetuses).

A woman doesn't abort because a fetus is expendable.
Nor does a woman feed a newborn because it *isn't* expendable.

We, as a society, currently allow both things because we value individual
determination.  We had to pick some kind of identity to recognise as a
governing unit.  It *could* have been the family unit.  It *could* have
been the king.  It *could* have been all adult males over 16 (it was at
one time).  But somehow the people in charge had to figure out what 
identity had the capability of self determination, and had the power to
implement the products of it's self determination, and that kind of led us
to the notion that a person, a separate individual born person, should be
the captain of his own ship.  This determination gets challenged all the 
time, of course:
   Siamese twins
   Twins of all kinds
   Pregnant women
   Incompetent persons
   Mentally incapable persons, temporarily or 'permanently'
   People who break the law with "good" intent
   People who break the law with "adequate" provocation
   People who break 'bad' laws
   People who just plain insist on not buying the general value systems
   Churches
   Politics
   International conflicts
   Self Interest
Be my guest to add arenas wherein you have identified questions.

But, because our decision is to make the individual the master of his fate,
we don't go about letting group A make decisions for person B about person B's
own life/disposition/decisions, etc.  The motto of our country ALMOST became
"don't tread on me" as in LEAVE ME ALONE because the people who put this
country together really didn't think ANY government had ANY right to make
individual decisions for individual people.  It quite simply isn't (wasn't
in their view) the function of government to enforce 'rightness' upon the

And this is the essential difference between a fetus and a newborn.  One is
undeniably separate -- REGARDLESS of how it obtains food, comfort or clean
diapers.  It meets the centuries old criterion for 'individual' by virtue
of it's ability to respirate on it's own, excrete, and ingest.  Plus, I'm 
sure, the brain figures in there somewhere.  And the other is (I'd guess 
from the level of argumentation just here) no where NEAR as obviously
'separate'.  Many people, myself included, do not consider it 'individual'
as long as it resides within the body of someone else.

A fetus is CAPABLE of respiration, excretion and ingestion, I'm sure.  And
probably capable of almost the same kinds of brain function.  But it isn't
separate.  Particularly in the late stages of pregnancy, it is placing
ENORMOUS load upon the woman whose body it inhabits.

And one of the primary values of our society is that people get to decide
for themselves what burdens they will or will not undertake.


For the sake of your argument above, which I have taken considerably
liberty with (-:, let me say I do not sanction ANY individual taking
action against a newborn.  Action harming a newborn is precisely as
henious (no more no less) as harming any other individual.  And we do not
recognise as just harmful actions directed from one individual to another
except in certain very limited exceptional circumstances.  

Hey, Joy, thanks for the good lead in that let me expound (ad nauseum!)
for a bit here.

Adrienne Regard