In talk.abortion, a.nonymouse
<someone@somewhere.com>
wrote
on Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:13:53 +0100
<QuFIa.2502$xF.124481@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:1bjas-8ki.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
In talk.abortion, a.nonymouse
<someone@somewhere.com>
wrote
on Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:39:04 +0100
<jFlIa.3655$Gm3.1929200@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:e8s8s-0fi.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
In talk.abortion, a.nonymouse
<someone@somewhere.com>
wrote
on Wed, 18 Jun 2003 12:58:45 +0100
<YrYHa.110$Gm3.51432@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote
in
message news:5n65s-eai.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
In talk.abortion, a.nonymouse
<someone@somewhere.com>
wrote
on Mon, 16 Jun 2003 21:00:04 +0100
<fjpHa.63$8y.61344@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>:
[snip for brevity]
I could not agree to the elective killing of a human being.
Neither would I, really. But is it a human being prior to birth?
Or at least prior to viability?
Well yes, that is my belief. I can trace the developmental train as
far
back as conception. Before that there are only gametes. A zygote
can
develop into a mature human being, a gamete can't.
Only with the help of external input (a woman's body), which it
modifies
to its needs (oocytes being the most obvious example, although that's
later in the gestation). It's actually more subtle than that, as
the woman's body evolved to allow a woman's progeny to subvert it,
in a weird sort of way, during pregnancy. But pregnancy is a
slightly unusual (and on a rare occasion, deadly) condition.
Yes, I suppose all living things need a supportive environment of some
sort
in order to survive?
Correct.
The question is: should we force that supportive environment
to remain supportive?
Personally I am not in favour of forcing anyone to do anything
if there is a viable alternative.
In this case, there is none, barring technological discovery
of a method by which a 5-12 week z/e/f can be transplanted
without harm to another womb or even an artificial contrivance.
(I'm assuming you pro-lifers are working on it. I'm not. :-) )
But in the context of abortion I think the question
goes something like this - Should we allow someone to kill
a human being for any reason whatsoever? - The answer is
of course "no". The only way to rationalise such a situation
is to deny that what is being killed is a human being.
I take it that's a "yes", then.
Please detail on how you'd prevent women from getting abortions
except in cases of dire medical need.
[.sigsnip]
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
