Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadovax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!keithd From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: Dividing Lines Message-ID: <390@cadovax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 5-Feb-85 13:21:52 EST Article-I.D.: cadovax.390 Posted: Tue Feb 5 13:21:52 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 9-Feb-85 09:19:08 EST References: <150@spp1.UUCP> <252@scgvaxd.UUCP> <382@cadovax.UUCP>, <296@psivax.UUCP> Organization: Contel Cado, Torrance, CA Lines: 77 [.........] >In article <382@cadovax.UUCP> keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes: >>>Everybody is trying to answer the "important" question; At what point >>>does the fetus become a human being. >> >>No, I don't think this is the important question at all. The question >>I'm trying to find the answer to, is at what point does the mother >>have to give up her rights in favor of the foetus. >> >>Keith Doyle > But this amounts to the same thing. The mother need not give >up her rights in favor of what is not human, but that which is human >does have rights which should not be abridged. Look at the arguments >presented by both sides. The pro-lifers argue repeatedly that a fetus >is human, pro-choicers continue to deny it. > Sarima (Stanley Friesen) Actually, as one who has pro-choice leanings, I don't feel that the issue of the non-human-ness of a foetus argument has a leg to stand on. I think it is clear that any argument that states that a foetus 'is not human yet' at any point in time is AT LEAST not supported by any scientific evidence. If we don't even know what constitues 'human-ness' we can hardly say that a foetus of a certain age has it or not. And, as the pro-lifers would probably say, 'If in doubt, assume it's human'. What I'm trying to say here, is that there are other pro-choice arguments, and it is these other arguments where I believe the really important issues lie. I think the real argument is something more like this; When one individual (let's call it the 'dependant' or 'foetus' ) depends on another individual ( the 'dependee' or 'mother' ) for it's life support, this does not mean that the 'dependee' totally gives up her rights in lieu of the dependants needs. And in fact, the dependee may have certain rights to 'pull-the-plug' or withdraw support from the dependant. This may not mean that this may occur without restriction, but there are situations that are complicated enough that explicit legislation may not be able to effectively address. Some of the legitimate 'reasons' a mother may have of withdrawing support are: 1. Physical health of the mother 2. Emotional health of the mother 3. Age of the mother (this means too young OR too old I expect) 4. Conflicts with the mothers means of livelihood And, there may be other reasons. In fact there may also be a 'grey area' that involves mothers who are considered incapable of 'proper care'. This could be for a variety of reasons, such as: 1. Insanity 2. Mental Deficiency 3. Drug addiction 4. Hereditary defects (in the mother) And I don't mean 'proper care' once the foetus is born, but while it is still 'in utero'. A mother who is highly depressed, smokes, drinks, etc. may cause the death or disfigurement of the foetus even without an abortion. And in fact, situations like this may be likely to occur without the thought and benifit of ANY counseling on the matter that one would get while applying for legal abortion. I feel that the government cannot assume that all people are innately 'responsible' and can be expected to or coerced into providing support to other humans. And certainly it was not difficult when abortion WAS illegal for someone to obtain one anyway. And in fact this may have been the primary reason it was legalized in the first place. I'm sure we would see some of these arguments in net.euthanasia if it existed. i.e. the rights of someone to withdraw life support. Keith Doyle {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd "CHOOSE life, don't legislate it!"