Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site grkermit.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!larry From: larry@grkermit.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Re: CHOICE and the Senate Message-ID: <494@grkermit.UUCP> Date: Mon, 11-Jul-83 12:13:37 EDT Article-I.D.: grkermit.494 Posted: Mon Jul 11 12:13:37 1983 Date-Received: Tue, 12-Jul-83 03:54:51 EDT References: <1120@rti.UUCP> Organization: GenRad Inc., Concord, MA Lines: 35 From: rcp@rti.UUCP ;;; We should all have legal control over our own bodies subject to ;;; the limitation that we do not violate others rights. Is the ;;; mothers right to avoid the discomfort of pregnancy more important ;;; than the childs right to live? Remember that in most cases the ;;; mother has the option of birth control if she wishes to avoid ;;; pregnancy. Fine, if the mother does not want to take care of her fetus, remove it from her care and make it a ward of the state. Of course that can't happen can it? You can remove a fetus from a womb and make it a ward of the state because it is not a human being, and cannot survive outside of the womb. No law in this country requires ANYBODY to keep anybody else alive. All it says is that if a person normally responsible for keeping someone alive renegs on that responiblity, they lose both the responibility and the priveleges associated with it. Thus, if a mother no longer wishes to care for the fetus, she loses the privelege and responibility to care for it. But until they figure out a way for someone else to care for it, abortion is the only solution. Finally, Unless you would allow abortions in case of uncontrolable pregnancy, then what is the point of your last sentence. And if you would than your murder argument is wrong. -- Larry Kolodney #13 (I try harder) (USENET) decvax!genrad!grkermit!larry allegra!linus!genrad!grkermit!larry harpo!eagle!mit-vax!grkermit!larry (ARPA) rms.g.lkk@mit-ai