To: Solon who wrote (6473 ) 2/25/2001 8:31:26 PM From: TimF Read Replies (1) | Respond to "The rational moral reason at least in cases that the fetus was not conceived from rape, is that the woman participated in causing the fetus to exist in its dependent state." The foetus lives off the body and mind of the host. So if the foetus is a person, it follows that people can commandeer body parts, blood, etc. of other people. The foetus has a need. Is this what justifies this violation of human rights? I have needs. I may be entirely faultless in needing a kidney. My kidney malfunction may be wholly adventitious. But I am a person (like the foetus), so there is absolutely no logical, rational, or moral reason why I may not demand that my life be saved by you. When a poster (Karen) tried to introduce contraception as a policy that could eventually serve to heal some of the divisiveness in this issue, you response (IMO, of course) was contrived to circumvent any such hope. You have an agenda, don't you? You throw a sop to the reasoning process, but I don't believe reason has anything to do with the beliefs you hold about the fetus. You are not grappling with ideas; You are evading them because you believe you already have the answers--right? You have an agenda, don't you? You throw a sop to the reasoning process, but I don't believe reason has anything to do with the beliefs you hold about the fetus. You are not grappling with ideas; You are evading them because you believe you already have the answers--right? I'm sorry, Twofowler, I simply am unable to get a sense of a genuine effort on your part to test the alternatives. I don't believe there are any alternatives for you; And I surely don't appreciate an insincere offer to negotiate the value of ideas; I hope this is not happening. 1). As I pointed out previously, IF the fetus is a person, THEN the fetus has the RIGHTS of a person. We know the fetus lives off the blood, bone marrow, and donations of a "PERSON" whose "person" status is not in doubt. You clearly believe this is a RIGHT of the fetus/person. You have said so. It follows that you believe the pregnant woman may be forced to sacrifice "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to this end. You do not say how you would force this contribution to the egg; Nor do you explain how a RIGHT has become an obligation. I find it appalling that a person (such as you) should be able to FORCE a person (such as me) to donate my blood and organs--and my "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to your NEED. But you said that the fetus was a person with the rights of a person. The last time I checked, no people had to sit at the back of the bus because their RIGHTS were unequal to other persons. Presumably, my rights are at least equal to a fetus. 2). Then you implied (by your "at least in cases that the fetus was not conceived from rape" comment) that the RIGHTS of the fetus were conditional upon behaviour of one or more OTHER PEOPLE. This almost made me throw up. You claimed the fetus was a "person" and had the RIGHTS (obviously, again) of a "person"--then you implied that if the pregnant woman was raped, the fetus could (perhaps) be killed. To suggest that a person's RIGHTS are forfeited by the actions of others is perhaps the most disgusting idea that I have ever come across in a half century of disgusting ideas. What on earth does a right mean to you?? Is the fault mine, that I have simply misread you? You know that I do not believe the fetus has the RIGHT to "life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", because it is basic to my understanding that Beatrice and her egg cannot both have the RIGHT to pursue potentially contradictory goals. A RIGHT includes the freedom to. They cannot both have the moral freedom to do DIFFERENT things, when those DIFFERENT things invade and circumvent the will of one another. The concept is stupid. 3). Again, you made some remarks about dependency of the foetus, as if dependency was the fault of the pregnant woman; Thus you bring in the idea of punishment. Do you mean that dependency is a prerequisite for having "personhood" and RIGHTS? ? What does dependency have to do with whether or not an egg is a PERSON? Lastly, who do you think you are arguing against? Have you ever met a person that liked abortions? Do you perhaps think that you have a greater maternal drive than the mother? For you abortion is never a personal decision involving your body, so one wonders why an impersonal decision should attract the same amount of concern, compassion, and struggle as a deeply personal one. Is there something else?
