Subject:
|
Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 11 Nov 2000 01:36:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
745 times
|
| |
|
|
Thanks James
"James Simpson" <jsimpson@rice.edu> wrote in message
news:G3tuoG.CBD@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> >
> > > > The removal of a non-sentient tissue structure from the body of a • woman
> > > > who doesn't want it inside her is not murder.
> > >
> > > Nice term "non-sentient tissue structure".
> >
> > Not to mention accurate.
>
> Your term may indeed be accurate, but I think that it does not do full • justice
> to the inherent and latent qualities of the tissue structure. When • confronting
> the abortion issue from either angle, the issue of potential *cannot* be
> avoided. My 5-year-old nephew was once inches from being aborted. He was
> allowed to live and the characteristics of sentience, personhood, • intelligence
> and awareness which were latent within that originally non-sentient tissue • has
> reached the maturity of development. All life has a beginning - sentience
> emerges from non-sentience, and as such the basic materials of that • emergence
> must be viewed in light of the design held within. All of us emerged from • a
> fundamental level of "tissue," but without that first necessary stage of • base
> material, none of the higher levels of being would be reached. Life • emerges
> from non-life - does it matter that the non-life that first exists in the • womb
> is yet a bare sketch of the form that it will later take? Why does it • matter
> that it is unaware and undeveloped when we know what it shall become? • Yes,
> sometimes an end to a fetus must be made - for reasons of health, in
> circumstances of brutality - and this end is tragic. I do not argue that • the
> rights of life within the womb supersede the rights of the woman carrying • it,
> but what is the inherent quality of those rights? Humans must carry life • within
> themselves - it is an intrisic property of our fully-matured design. When • a man
> and woman make a free choice to create life, or even merely a free choice • to
> chance the creation of life, with the full understanding that the nature • of our
> being is that the life must grow within the woman (as co-partner), why is • she
> then absolved of the responsibility to nurture that tissue that becomes • Alive?
> (And of course, He must not be absolved of his responsibilities either.) • She
> has the right to create, but with that right does not the responsibility • follow
> to nurture to fullness the non-life that becomes like Her? That web of • tissue
> has a right for the its qualities that will soon become Aware. We make • far too
> little of that mere tissue.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
279 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
