From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: You ARE killing
Date: 29 Dec 92 21:04:23 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

an4149@anon.penet.fi writes:

Well, now this is real courage....an anonymous posting...

>You state that because a fetus may not survive without intervention outside 
>the womb that it is not a life and therefore may be terminated at our 
>convenience.
>
>After birth, and for some years children are not capable of surviving without
>intervention, therefore we should be able terminate their life when they 
>become an inconvenience. 

Small difference...LOCATION...and also who is the 'intervener.'  Basically,
once a child is born, *ANY* adult can care for the child.  They do NOT need
their mother...or their father, at least physically.  I do just fine taking 
care of my kids when my wife's not around.

On the other hand, a fetus requires the care of a specific person, whos
health and/or life may be endangered, or who may not be in a postion to
care for the fetus.

Do you fail to see the difference?  Total dependence in the first case (ie
the fetus) is on one specific person who may suffer harm.  In the second
case (the baby), the child requires nourishment, shelter and other basic
case.  This could come from a robot, if necessary, if we ignore the
emotional needs for a moment.

Big difference, non?

>The majority homeless and poor in our society would not be able to survive if 
>it were not for outside intervention of some form, we should therefore be able
>to terminate their life when they become an inconvenience.
Again, they are not dependent on a single person, nor generally threaten
physical damage or harm to the person providing the assistance.

>Granted these arguments are absurd
First correct thing you said in the post!

>, but no more so than those that state that a
>fetus is not a human life.  Argueably it does not experience life as we 
>know it but, does this make its life any less than our own?
It is human (ie of the species Homo sapiens) and it is 'life', but the
fetus does not have any rights which override the rights of the mother to
bodily autonomy and the right to protect herself from potential harm.

>We demand that responsible pet owners spay and nueter or otherwise prevent 
>their pets from mating to control unplanned and unwanted pet pregnancies.
>We are willing to make these decisions concerning our pets, but we will not
>take similar responsibility over our own animal instincts.
Birth control can and does fail.  Are you suggesting forced sterilization?
What do you do in the case of a woman who uses proper protection and still
finds herself pregnant?  Or in cases of rape or incest?  Or whose life is
endangered?  And by the way, abortion can be a responsible action...

>During an abortion, you are taking a life.  Your actions and motives determine
>YOUR true worth as a human being.

That's right...and in some cases, the correct and responsible decision may 
well be to abort.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion