Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihnp1.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!ihnp1!dolan From: dolan@ihnp1.UUCP (Mike Dolan) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Abortion Message-ID: <212@ihnp1.UUCP> Date: Tue, 21-Feb-84 12:09:29 EST Article-I.D.: ihnp1.212 Posted: Tue Feb 21 12:09:29 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 22-Feb-84 02:11:52 EST Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 81 Sophie, In response to your series of articles on abortion: It is evident that you have spent a lot of time trying to understand the various aspects of the issue. But before you get too far into the remainder of your series, please respond to this question. Given that a child is a human being at birth, what reason is there to consider it not to be a human being before birth? To say that a child is not a human being at one point, and is at another requires that ability to show that somehow this "humanness" was added. What is there which adds this humanness? Is it the birth process itself? If so, why do we consider caesarean born children to be human? Is it the environment of the womb? The womb is a sophisticated life support system that has yet to be equaled by modern science. The womb provides food, oxygen, protection, warmth, and waste removal. If we were to declare that being yet attached to the life support system of the womb made a child not human, why should we not say that anyone in a hospital with tubes attached all over for life support is not human either? Is it human form? Then what is human form? Your form right now is not that which you had when you were newborn. Moreover, to declare form to be the deciding factor would be to declare that anyone born without arms or legs to be non-human. Is it brain waves? Recognizably human brain waves have been detected in utero ten weeks after conception. And that was with the level of sophistication of equipment available five years ago. With more sophisticated equipment it is probable that such brain waves could be detected earlier. How much earlier? I don't know. But if brain waves are the determining factor, abortion after at most ten weeks would be the killing of a human being. You see, Sophie, the arguments of those against abortion are not emotional, though there are certainly strong emotions on both sides of the issue. Our argument is the fundamental one that the unborn child is a human being. A child is a human being at birth, and there is nothing to suggest some sort of nonhumanness-to-humanness change prior to birth. Therefore, an unborn child is entitled to the same human rights as any of the rest of us. I am not allowed to kill you for the sake of some convenience on my part. If you threaten my physical life, our society's laws of self-defense apply and allow me to kill you. In the same way, I cannot take the life of an unborn child for the sake of my convenience unless it is threatening my physical life. Does that lead to a lot of other problems? You bet it does! And our society is learning to handle them. There are special places that an unwed pregnant teenager can go if she needs a loving, caring place to live while she bears her baby. These places can remove the feeling of stigma that our society places on such women. And there are other counseling, adoption, and medical services being provided to help a woman through the trauma of rape, incest, etc. These services are the ones that need to be encouraged and supported. But killing a baby does not solve a problem, it only compounds it. So please, Sophie, before you generalize the issue of abortion as an emotional one, consider the very rational question that I have posed. If an unborn child is non-human, what is it that makes it a human being at birth? Have a Good Day, Mike Dolan AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, IL 60566 (312)979-6767 ihnp4!ihnp1!dolan