From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: You ARE killing
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:03:58 GMT

an4149@anon.penet.fi writes:
>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.

No, I've never seen anyone state that; I don't even agree with it.  A
fetus is a life, unargably.  You're on the right track, though, when
you say that it may be terminated because it can't survive (with or
without intervention) outside the womb.  Think about this for a little
while.

>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. 

Now you're on the wrong track.  Abortion isn't about terminating
lives; it's about freeing a woman from the fetus that's using her for
its development.  If there were some way to remove the fetus from her
body without harming her or resulting in the death of the fetus, then
abortions would become completely unnecessary.

Children, on the other hand, aren't making any demands on your body,
and putting them up for adoption won't cause any physical harm to them
or to you.

>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.

This is another common pro-life tactic, but it's a strawman.  There is
a difference between relying on SOCIETY or A GROUP OF PEOPLE, and
being totally dependent on ONE SPECIFIC PERSON.

>Granted these arguments are absurd, 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?

Okay, let's pull out Mr. Hypothetical Situation.  Let's say I'm
connected to you in some way, drawing resources from your body and
meanwhile also putting your body at physical risk.  Let's say also
that disconnecting me would result in my death.  Do I have the right
to demand that you continue to support me, even if this goes against
your wishes?  I believe that I don't have any right to demand that
from you.  That's what it means to be pro-choice.

>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.

We won't?  What do you call contraception, then?  What do you call
vasectomies and tubal ligations?  But even these aren't 100% foolproof...

You're also ignoring a lot of other important issues.  Not every
abortion takes place because a girl has had unprotected sex with a guy
and accidentally gotten pregnant.  Sometimes a woman has an abortion
because her fetus is so deformed as to face a short, painful life,
even though she really wants a baby.  Sometimes a woman has an
abortion because she is physically or emotionally unable or unwilling
to carry a fetus to term.  The cases aren't always as simple as you'd
make them out to be.

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

Agreed.  And I believe I'm defending the most inalienable right of a
human being -- the right to her or his body.  That another innocent
human life must die to preserve this freedom is regrettable, but I
hope that we will find a way around this someday.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    carborundorum.                                             -- Rousseau