Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Another right to not
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 9 Sep 92 13:00:05 GMT
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: rivero

In article <ygsn3#k@lynx.unm.edu>, bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
> In article <1992Sep8.104542.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>>In article <whnnlhd@lynx.unm.edu>, bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>>>  The fact that she isn't a
>>> doctor and didn't finish high school isn't necessarily an indication
>>> that she doesn't know the biological status of a fetus.
> 
>>  It indicates that her opinion is unevaluated, as dhe clearly lacks
>>the tools to verify whether what she reads or sees on television is
>>accurate or not. She may believe (even accuratly), but she cannot
>>KNOW, as knowledge requires a factual base, not just a popular
>>mythos.
> 
> Are you a medical doctor?  If not, how can you the biological status
> of anything?

  I had a year of pre-med before switching to Astronomy. However, if you
re-read the original post, I specifically stated I had gone out to see the
scientific evidence first hand for myself. That tends to provide better insight
than watching "Oprah" while waiting for one's nail polish to dry.


> 
> I agree that not finishing high school may make more more likely to be
> deficient in certain areas of logic and reason, but that hardly
> guarantees it.

  No, but it does apply in this case. 

> 
>>>   Ending the life of
>>> somebody already born is not the same as ending the life of a fetus.
> 
>>  That is entirely an arbitrary decision. It's like in "Logan's
>>Run" when everyone over 30 is executed. It's a convenience for the
>>overall society, set at the "optimum" termination age. Doesn't mean
>>they really deserve to die, or that they don't feel it. It's
>>just what's expedient.
> 
> Actually, it was 21, but they couldn't get a bunch of "minor" actors
> to play the part and still work within budget (child labor laws and
> all that) so they changed it to 30.

  Details details details! :)


> 
>>This dehumanization
>>is so total that we, as a nation, are very concerned with the possible pain
>>felt by our worst criminals as they are executed, while blithly assuming 
>>that a foetus cannot feel it's own death.
> 
> You're going to have to define what it is to be a human that separates
> us from other beings that we kill without a second thought.

  I _CAN'T_ define what is or is not human, and neither can you or anyone else.
That's the whole point. The idea that a foetus becomes human when it crosses
some arbitrary line is exactly that, an arbitrary line erected as justification
for a political position. The diea that a foetus isn't human until born has no
more scientific validity than the notion that it's human at the very moment
of conception. ANY boundary that is set will be an arbitrary one because
humanness is a gradual process. Like the borderlines on a globe, such
boundaries don't really exist, but are political markers only.

> 
> In truth, the question comes down to whether or not the fetus has the
> right to the use of the mother's womb without her consent.
> 

  But, does the mother retain the right to "evict" once consent is given?
In my own case, the pregnancy itself was entered into willingly; she changed
her mind afterwards? And if a woman promises (explicitly) a child in
order to enter into a marriage, does that not imply that consent has
been given?



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  Middle-Aged Mutant Ninja Animator   |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|                    When 911 won't work,  .357 will!                    |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>