From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: The Right to Exist
Date: 10 Apr 92 11:41:45 CDT

In article <1992Apr9.192104.6191@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>
>I've made no arguments about what the law should say with respect to
>abortion. Personally, I am undecided on the issue. I think it's possible 
>for people to believe that killing a fetus is wrong, but that no law 
>should penalize persons for killing a fetus. 
>I'm giving you my value system. It is not an agenda.

Fair enough. As long as you don't propose legislation removing
existing rights from born women, I don't have a quarrel with your
value system, although I disagree with some of your values.
>
[deletions]
>Can you please give me your reasoning as to why the fetus should
>not be granted rights, and which is NOT based upon a subjective
>judgment of human life.  
>
Fetuses should not be granted rights because this cannot be done
without removing existing rights from born women. When technology
catches up with your system of values, and we can 'beam' the fetus
to a different location without harm to the woman, perhaps I would
be more receptive on the subject of fetal rights.
I'm not sure whether this is a 'subjective judgement of human life'
or not. I don't feel obligated to manufacture a reason which falls
in line with your standards. 

[more deletions]

>> And you have no problem with removing the rights of born women
>> in the meantime?
>I had thought you were above asking loaded questions. I am not certain  
>what the law should say.
>
Hey, I'm a mother. Loaded questions are one of my specialties.

[more deletions]
>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'.

>>> Is a human life any less worthy because it is attached to a
>>> respirator? 
>> I don't think worthiness is an issue. There's no fundamental
>> right to be kept alive in that way. 
>Are their lives less worthy, yes or no? Please answer.
>
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.

Interesting that you press me for an answer to this hypothetical,
poorly-defined question, yet you deleted the exchange in which you 
referred to a woman as 'anything', and I called you on it.

[more deletions]
>How about if a fetus is killed in the process?
>
Unfortunate, but not immoral, IMO.

[deletions]
>> 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.

muriel
standard disclaimer