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