From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Summary: Where is the bright line?
Keywords: abortion
Date: 7 Jan 93 19:41:05 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

In article <17DEC92.14494300@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
|In a previous article, stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) wrote:
|>How are they different?  To kill a new born child is unquestionably
|>murder.*  What happened in the few hours of the birthing process the
|>unborn child into a person?  
|
|Before the birthing process the fetus is using and living inside a woman's 
|body.  After birth it becomes an independent, legal person, no longer 
|occupying a woman's body.  It's a significant difference.

True (except that a newborn is not "independent"), but the difference
is not in the child (which I use here for both the born and unborn),
but in his surroundings.

|>Where in the changes from conception to adulthood does the concepta
|>become a person?  There is no bright line, no change we can point to
|>that clearly marks this boundary, except conception.  
|
|Why not birth?  Seems like a very "bright line" to me.

Why birth?  What about the fetus himself has changed?  Principally only
that, after birth, he must breath for himself.  He is still dependent on
others for food (although I'll admit it needn't come from the mother
now, she is still legally responsible) and all other needs.

|>The only firm footing I can find to separate the non-person
|>(which you can kill) from the person (which you can not) is biological. 
|>The zygote is biologically a human being.  So to answer your question, a
|>zygote is the same as a born person in that they are both biologically
|>human beings.
|
|I agree that both are biologically human.  However, you are overlooking the 
|woman involved.

No I'm not.  If the unborn child is a person, then the mother may not
simply kill him for any non-vital rights she claims the child is
violating.  You can't kill a house-guest just because he has overstayed
his welcome and doesn't want to leave and you think he is violating your
rights.

|If these fetuses were turning in to babies in an artificial 
|womb I'd agree with your arguement.  If a fetus is using a woman's body 
|against her will, there is a significant difference between that fetus and 
|your typical born person.

The child is still an imposition on the parents after birth.  Adoption
is possible, but not always.

In any case, there is no difference in the fetus in your two examples. 
If it is wrong to kill the fetus in one case, it is wrong in both. 
Likewise, if it is ok in one, it is ok in both.

|>* Legally at least.  I note with alarm that it seems more and more
|>people are questioning even that -- I see this an inevitable result of
|>legal abortion
|
|Do you have any evidence to support this claim?  How many is "more and more"?

This is simply my perception.  As evidence I note (with alarm) that at
least two people stepped forward in this NEWS groups just recently to
say they believed infanticide up to a certain age should be ok.  Again,
it is just my perception, but I don't this view was as common 20, or 30
years ago.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12915 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11408 alt.politics.clinton:19546 alt.politics.bush:15453 alt.politics.homosexuality:8887