NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/talk/abortion/46921

Text File | 1992-11-08 | 3.0 KB | 66 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!news.byu.edu!hamblin.math.byu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!ames!kronos.arc.nasa.gov!iscnvx!netcomsv!netcom.com!ray
From: [e-mail] (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Why pro-choicers must argue that a fetus is not a person
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Netcom San Jose
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:29:15 GMT
Lines: 55

[e-mail] (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ...
> [e-mail] (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>There are quite a few reasons the exact moment is useful and required.
>>
>>In this country one may use dependents for tax deductions for the
>>year.  In order to do this, one needs to know in which year personhood
>>began.
>
>To the nearest year = exact moment?

Yes.  I matters, presently, whether a child is born 31/12/92 23:59:50
or 1/1/93 00:00:20.  In one case you get to claim the deduction for
another whole year.  (dates are in European format)

>>Criminal cases also depnd on knowing whether a person was
>>involved.  Should a woman have a late and heavy period, is that reason
>>to suspect homicide or manslaughter?
>
>If a man falls down dead in the street, is _that_ a reason to suspect
>manslaughter?  People die of natural causes all the time, and the legal
>system still ticks along.

It is easy to tell if a man falls down dead of a bullet hole.  Since
an embryo dies because of it removal, whether it was a natural or
induced miscarry it difficult to determine from the expelled tissue
(assuming it's even available).  In order to establish a crime you'd
have to prove that 1) the woman was pregnant, 2) the miscarry was
induced rather than natural, 3) the embryo was still alive at the time
of the miscarry.  To prove murder you'd also have to show that 4) she
knew she was pregnant (or suspected it) and 5) took the drug to end
the pregnancy.

>You are a razor-sharp pragmatist, Ray, and I've learnt a lot from reading
>your posts - but its probably true to say that as much harm occurs in the
>name of pragmatism, science, logic, and economics as has ever been done in
>the name of religion.  We are all guessing - but I must say you guess very
>well :-)

Thanks.

The greatest danger of pragmatism is failing to consider ALL of the
issues.  While it may be true that women have a right to their own
bodies, one cannot discount the social effect and attitudes fostered by
an opinion that a fetus is worthless.  For that reason I do not
generally argue for that view.

In my _opinion_ one _must_ recognize that both the woman and the
fetus have great value.  But the priciple of liberty may have more
value than a fetus.  Many people have died to preserve our freedoms;
I am rather stringly disinclined to forgo those freedoms without
compelling reasons.

--
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
[e-mail]                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche