[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>Abortion, by definition, is the termination of pregnancy by any means before
>the fetus is sufficiently developed to survive. This ability of the fetus
>to survive outside of the maternal organism defines "viability".
Hey, Ron, I am as pro-choice as any of Rush Limbaugh's feminazis and might
not be that opposed to a retroactive abortion in his case. But viability is
a far more nebulous concept than the idiocy of arguing over when life
begins. The means of keeping a fetus alive reaches further and further back
and in time science may be expected to allow us to dispense with all but the
egg and sperm. Gosh, imagine that. We can even dispense with coitus now. :-{
>A person,
>in my opinion, is a living, viable, cognitive, reasoning individual, capable
>of independent existence...maybe this is my way of dealing with the ultimate
>question which has never been answered in medicine, philosophy, or theology
>( at least no consensus agreement) the difficult question of when life
>begins. I like to think that life begins when the fetus becomes a viable
>person. It makes it easier for me to sleep at night after being called a
>murderer, a Nazi, even been called a pedophile. Don't use the term
>pro-life, it is anti-choice, I am not anti-life for crying out loud. Ron
Why not simply distinguish the acts rather than the results? It is after
all done in every case of possible criminal conduct. When a pregnant woman
was shot in the stomach her would-be killer killed her fetus instead. While
she may have had the option of having an abortion, her attacker did not have
the same right to extinguish the life of her fetus. He was charged with murder.
Best, Terry
"Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
