Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mh3bs!mhtsa!exodus!gamma!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece
From: preece@uicsl.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: An old topic: abortion - (nf)
Message-ID: <5867@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 25-Feb-84 03:46:05 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.5867
Posted: Sat Feb 25 03:46:05 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 26-Feb-84 23:23:40 EST
Lines: 21

#R:watmath:-690400:uicsl:16400044:000:885
uicsl!preece    Feb 24 23:16:00 1984

My position is relatively simple: Every person should have an
unrestricted right to determine what goes on within his or her
body.  I believe that's the basis of the privacy argument in the
Supreme Court's view, as well.  Just as no agency can compel me
to donate a kidney to a needy person, no agency should be able
to compel a woman to lend her uterus to a fetus, WHETHER OR NOT
that fetus is considered a human being.

The one restriction I could accept is a provision that after
reasonable viability the removal of the fetus be carried out in
a way that would not damage it (the Merchant of Venice clause).
Before viability I see a qualitative difference between the
fetus and a person.  Frankly, I'd like to see a really good
(reliable, no side effects) abortifacient that would induce
expulsion of the fetus without otherwise harming it.

scott preece
ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece