From: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Right to Exist
Date: 11 Apr 92 16:59:22 GMT
Reply-To: dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Apr10.114145.24983@hemlock.cray.com> 
mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:

>> How about child support? That is a financial attachment. Do you support
>> child support laws? If so, then why is a financial attachment justified
>> under the law, but not a physical attachment? 

> If you don't see the difference, perhaps we should talk again after
> you've read 'The Value of a Man'.

There is a difference in degree, but the principles behind child support
and anti-abortion legislation are remarkably similar. (But of course, 
a law should never be based upon principle alone). Would you agree that 
child support and anti-abortion laws share the same principles? (Please
understand that I'm not asking you what the law should say).

>> Is a human life any less worthy because it is attached to a
>> respirator? 

> I don't believe I've ever seen the word 'worthy' used to describe
> life itself. It does carry a +moral connotation, and is more 
> commonly used in describing individuals/institutions/beliefs/
> activities that have moral content. If what you mean is something
> like, 'worthy of support', or 'worthy of not being terminated
> by having the plug pulled', then my answer is maybe. Depends on 
> whether there is potential for recovery.

I'm not asking whether a person on a respirator is worthy of
support. Under some circumstances, it is not worthwhile to
continue to give support to a person attached to a respirator. 
They may be in a permanent coma, and the cost of supporting
them may be put to better use by supporting other persons.   
By removing _support_ from one person and giving it to another,
we are placing a value on the _support_ of one person's life over 
another life. Is it your opinion that we are also placing a 
value on a person's _life_?  

> Interesting that you press me for an answer to this hypothetical,
> poorly-defined question, 

I'll drop the question if you want. I can't form the question
any better. 

> yet you deleted the exchange in which you 
> referred to a woman as 'anything', and I called you on it.

I said that the value of a human life should not depend on its
connection to anything. If the fetus is disconnected from the
mother and hooked up to a respirator, the value of the fetus' life
should not change. The value of the woman's life should not change 
after the woman has an abortion or gives birth. I did not mean to 
imply that the woman is a "thing" by using the word "anything".
Perhaps you have a better word?  

I normally delete things when I feel that it does not contribute
substantially to the discussion. Obviously you felt otherwise.
My mistake. 

>> How about if a fetus is killed in the process?

> Unfortunate, but not immoral, IMO.

So it's not immoral to kill a fetus? Does that apply only to abortion, 
or in all situations?  (Please understand that I'm not asking you what
the law should say).
 
>>> Do you have any problem with the premise, 'a pregnant woman should
>>> have the same rights as other born human beings'?

>> Change it to, 'a pregnant woman should have an equal right to exist
>> as other human lives', and I would agree. 

> Not good enough for me. If your morals would grant fewer rights
> to pregnant women than you grant to other born humans, they
> would fail to meet my standards of morality.

I'm giving her the same right to live as the fetus, or any other
human life. How does that grant her fewer rights?