From: aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: University of Victoria
Date: 12 Jan 93 02:19:48 GMT

mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <aidler.726560622@sanjuan> aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler) writes:
>>Any zygote has the *potential* to produce a unique child
>Any sperm/ovum has the *potential* to produce a unique child.
>Do you have a point to make?

Once fertilization occurs, the genetic basis for a 
unique human being is cast.  Before fertilization, the 
sperm and ovum could combine with any of its
counterparts so a unique individual does not exist.

>>(unless you can prove otherwise -- not in general but for
>>each one individually).
>I can *and have* shown that 2/3 or *more* of all completely fail to
>produce the "unique child" you are so enamoured of. Which makes a
>child a far cry from the inevitable result you claim it is.

However, until you can determine that a z/e/f at any
stage in his or her development will not thrive, we
must give each of them a full opportunity to develop. 

>>Just because the child is not born shouldn't deprive
>>him or her of all rights.
>You have yet to provide any reason to believe that a z/e/f is a child.

The z/e/f certainly has the potential to become a child.
I would not claim that he or she merits the full
rights of a child because abortion may be the only
way to provide compasionate relief to the mother.
However, his or her limited rights could prevail
against the mother's decision to abort.
Do you feel the unborn child has no rights or that
any right he or she could have is always subservient to
any decision the mother could make?

>>The fact that he or she is in no position to object to his
>>or her death does not give the other party total control
>>of the situation.
>Certainly it does. It happens all the time. Unless you can produce
>some rational evidence to show that this is wrong, don't expect
>anybody to buy your bilge.

Are you saying that the more abortions we have 
the more "right" they become?

>>Even those tried in absentia are entitled to legal 
>>representation.
>>
>This isn't a court case, there are no lawyers invovled (despite the
>dreams of fetus worshippers). Nor is a fetus considered a legal person
>in any case. It's existance is dependant upon the willingness and
>ability of a woman to provide 100% of it's needs. Such needs being
>taken 100% from her own resources.
>This gives her all the right she needs to withhold thoswe resources
>for her own use.

When a woman consents to sexual relations she should
be prepared to offer those resources at part of the
biological contract.
If an objective medical opinion demonstrates that she
may not be capable of providing those resources, then 
she should have the option to abort.

>Do you support laws which would force the donation of
>blood/tissue/organs?

I would -- if the situation approximated a pregnancy:

1.  the recipient must be in urgent need of the donation;

2.  the donor must be the only person who can supply 
the need, given current technology (i.e: no volunteers
or artificial solutions exist);

3.  the recipient must be a dependent of the donor; and,

4.  the physical and emotional demands on the donor must 
not be greater than those under which a pregnant woman 
would have the choice to abort.

A IDLER
Newsgroups: talk.abortion