home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky talk.abortion:33805 alt.abortion.inequity:3311
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
- Path: sparky!uunet!psinntp!coopsol!gordons
- From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
- Subject: Re: Legal Questions
- Message-ID: <1992Aug26.222413.12094@coopsol.com>
- Organization: Stay Awake Software
- References: <1992Aug24.170430.371@advtech.uswest.com> <ovuh25g@fido.asd.sgi.com> <1992Aug25.184334.13929@advtech.uswest.com>
- Distribution: usa
- Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 22:24:13 GMT
- Lines: 27
-
- <1992Aug25.184334.13929@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) said:
- >In article <ovuh25g@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
-
- >We cannot afford to define the begining of life as that point where the
- >fetus reaches sapience, because that would leave the door open for
- >the legal right to execute brain-damaged individuals. Not a pretty
- >picture.
-
- This is a fallacy. A fetus is not a person. It has no legal rights. A
- person is a human being that has been born. The entire premise behind
- abortion is to *terminate* a pregnancy. If a born human is brain damaged
- then abortion laws do not apply. You do not execute a born person who is
- brain damaged. They are not living inside the body of another person.
-
- You are comparing Apples and IBMs.
-
- Let's put it this way: If the fetus in a woman was sentient/sapient AND
- was the next Jesus, Ghandhi, Einstein, or Elvis it *wouldn't matter* to
- me. If the woman wanted it out -- it comes out. Once it's born she can
- give it up for adoption -- she doesn't have to kill it.
-
-
- Gordon
- --
- The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
- of whatever company you think I work for. So there, thhhbbbt!
- Message to Kodak: Freedom for Dan Bredy.
-