Re: Defining human

08 Mar 1998 23:13:00 +0200

Hi all,

Mark wrote:

> >The arguments for rape, incest, life-of-the-mother and fatal defects are
> >rational, even if they prescribe tragic consequences.
> But your argument seems to be that a fetus acquires rights at some
> objectively-determined age. In that case, how can an abortion be
> justified after that age even in these instances, and how can an
> abortion before that age not be justified for any reason?

Yes, that's the question. If the fetus acquires human rights, we can't
abort him, because he have fatal defects or will come to birth even in
these instances. If we justified an abortion even in these instances, we
are murders of human beings and justified a selection of humans to kill
handicapped people.

I think, a fetus isn't a human being with a free will; it's a part of the
mother in his first 0 to 100 or 180 days. A fetus is a being with the
potential to be an human being with human right(s) in the future.
> >When I drive by the local abortion "clinic" every day, I am acutely aware
> >that I am driving by a Nazi or Stalinist death camp.
> I think that just about ends the discussion, don't you?

I think that people who think in that way don't really know the holocaust.
They belittle and play down the holocaust; the jews in Nazi germany have
hadn't teoretical human rights like the fetus. Jews i Nazi germany have
had human rights like other human beings and the Nazis *have denied* this
human rights. A fetus is only for a small group of foe of abortions a
human being.

N. Myowna .