Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site mhuxh.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!mhuxn!mhuxl!mhuxh!stu3
From: stu3@mhuxh.UUCP (Systems Training Dept)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re:  A recent exchange
Message-ID: <175@mhuxh.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 20-Sep-84 18:17:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: mhuxh.175
Posted: Thu Sep 20 18:17:40 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 20:20:29 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 107

Before I start, let me say that the views below reflect my personal
feelings only.  Now,to work.  From the net, as of a day or two ago:

>> > That is correct.  The robber is wholly resposible for his actions;
>> > you are responsible for none of them.
>>
>> You entirely miss the point.  If you don't play with, fire you won't
>> get burned.
>
>Bull.  Fire and robbers are not analogous.  Fire is a non-sentient
>phenomenon to which the concept of free will does not even apply.
>A robber is a person, and therefore a sentient entity capable of
>controlling his/her actions.  A robber is therefore wholly responsible
>for his/her own actions.  Fires do not have minds with which to 
>consider the consequences of actions; fires do not even "act", in the
>same sense of the word as people do.  People act; fires happen.
>
>By the principle you appear to espouse, criminals are blameless, and
>victims cause crime simply by failing to defend completely against
>its possibility.
>
You are still missing the point, I think.  The analogy does not
depend on fires being sentient.  The point is that when partners
choose to have intercourse, both of them should be responsible for the
consequences of that act.  Pregnancy, despite what you say in the
quote below, is typically a possible consequence of intercourse even when
birth control methods are used. There are exceptions, such as when
one or both partners is sterile.  Now, if you don't want a pregnancy
on your hands, one obvious solution is not to have intercourse at
all, hence the "playing with fire" reference above.  Of course, one
may still choose to have intercourse, and thus, I must point out,
exercise control over his/her body.  A resulting pregnancy is just
that:  a result of a choice made.  Asserting that abortion is
controlling one's body is true enough on the surface, but underneath
it just denotes a cop-out and unwillingness to take responsibility for
one's own actions.  Note that BOTH partners should be held
responsible for an act of intercourse, so don't just slip away, guys, as
society looks the other way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>                         And as far as the woman's will, if she takes the
>> risk, she should be willing to accept the consequences.
>>
>>
>>                                         Steve Wall
>
>The very existence of the medical procedure called "abortion" indicates
>that an unwanted child is not the necessary consequence of an unwanted
>pregnancy.  The very existence of fairly reliable birth control indicates
>that an unwanted pregnancy is not necessarily a risk associated with sex.
>Pregnancy is neither a necessary risk nor a necessary consequence of sex.
>There is, therefore, no such "risk" or "consequences" as you refer to.
>
Hmmm, I was under the impression that there was always a risk of
pregnancy arising out of an act of intercourse involving two fertile
individuals...birth control can indeed be "fairly reliable", but there's
always a chance...  My feeling is still that one should have the
courage to take responsibilities for one's actions.  There is a chance
of pregnancy when intercourse occurs; if you choose to have intercourse,
be prepared for that possibility.  I cannot emphasize enough that such
responsibility includes both partners.
>BTW, when you drive down the highway, you take the risk that you will lose
>control of your car and hit a bridge (or other large object).  If this
>should (Otis forbid!) happen to you, should you be denied medical treatment
>on the grounds that you deserve to suffer the consequences of your action?
>
>--
>"Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs"
>Ken Montgomery
>
>
No, I don't, Ken, but now I appear to be missing the point.  You are
talking about hitting a bridge; I am talking about causing harm to
another.  There would be an analogy if you hit a person instead of a
bridge; you could be responsible (sued, put on trial, etc.) if a vehicle
you were driving injured or killed another person.  But in that case,
so what?  In both cases, life is harmed.

***************************************************************************

BTW, don't expect me to take care of a child that is born from
someone else's act of intercourse.  It was their choice to have
intercourse; they now have to live with the consequences.  And, yes,
I know that being pregnant is one of the most stressful times of life,
and abortions can be shattering emotionally.  This is one reason why
we need better sex education in this country, (regardless of whether
you are for abortion or not), so that people know exactly what they are
lining themselves up for when they choose to have intercourse.

Question:  does anybody know about how far medicine has gotten with
transplanting embryos?  This might remove some of my objections to
abortion, although the legal side of this whole idea has only gotten
to the point where we are aware that it is a *mess*.

I suppose I had best ring off now and let someone else have a go,
besides, it is getting hard to see in here from all the smoke...
it's also getting quite hot...

As usual, flames welcome, tho intelligent discussion (fine if you
don't feel my remarks above approached intelligence) is much
preferred.  Send to the net or you can attack me personally if you
like thru the adrress below.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
"Scotty, get those shields up!"
                                                  Mark Modig
                                                ..ihnp4!btlunix!mom