Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-ngp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm
From: kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: An abortion story
Message-ID: <1103@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-Nov-84 12:54:46 EST
Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.1103
Posted: Fri Nov 30 12:54:46 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 4-Dec-84 06:07:13 EST
References: <46@tove.UUCP> <1097@ut-ngp.UUCP> <52@tove.UUCP>
Organization: U.Texas Computation Center, Austin, Texas
Lines: 173

>>> = Liz Allen
>>  = Ken Montgomery
>   = Liz Allen

>>Valued by whom?  Anyway, why does the alleged "value" of a fetus
>>override the woman's right to control her property (her body)?
>
>Valued by society or the state in that the values of a society
>(especially one like ours) are realized by the laws.

Society is not a person.  It cannot think.  It therefore *cannot*
hold values.

>As has been said at least a few times before, there are two rights
>involved here: (1) the right of the fetus to live and (2) the right of
>the woman to control her own body.  The right the fetus has to live is
>related to the value we place on its life and that value has to with
>our view of the fetus.  If we view it as a human being with the
>accompanying rights, then its right to live is much greater than the
>right of the woman to control her body.

Only if you give the right to life precedence over the right to
control one's property.  But this argument is nugatory, since
the "right to life" is couterfeit; there is no such right.  There
is the right to *attempt* life, but it does *not* include the ability
to make claims on the resources of others.  Ergo, the woman is acting
fully within her rights in choosing to refuse the aid of her body to
the fetus, i.e., in getting an abortion.

>>Why does the alleged brain activity of the fetus give it the right
>>to use the woman's body?
>
>See the above...

The "above" did not, in my opinion, answer the question.

>>>If it causes you to grant a high degree of humanity to the unborn
>>>and if you value humanity, then abortion does become unthinkable.
>>
>>"Value humanity"?  What does this phrase mean?  Are you saying
>>that there is some way in which random people are valuable to
>>me?  Can I trade this value for a microcomputer? :-)
>
>I *thought* our society had some regard for the value of human life.

(Once again...)  Figments of the imagination cannot hold *regard*
for anything, including values.

>>*Society* does not decide anything.  *People* decide things.
>>*Society* is only a (sometimes) convenient figment of our
>>imaginations.  No person has the right to take over the body
>>of another, even to prevent death (or promote life).
>
>If you have to, read "the state" for "society", or perhaps "law"...
>In our country, the people in our society have the option to decide
>that abortion is wrong (by enacting legislation to make it illegal).

The law does not state what is right and what is wrong; vide the
so-called "eminent domain" power -- legal theft.  Are there
circumstances in which theft is right?  The law merely states the
whims of those who have achieved political power.

>And who's taking over who's body?  The fetus didn't appear as if
>by magic...  Sometimes when I'm reading articles in this group, it
>sounds like people are saying that this fetus came from nowhere
>and is taking over this random woman's body.

Where it came from is irrelevant.  Consent to sex is *NOT* consent
to conception!

> Now, I'll assume that
>everyone really does know better than that, but let's try and keep
>in mind that any woman who is sexually active is taking the risk

Yes...

>(or welcoming the risk!)

BOGUS!!  Just burned out my **** bogosity meter!  If you drive a
car, are you "welcoming the risk" of being in an accident?

> of becoming pregnant.  There ought to be
>some consideration of this risk and some acceptance of the
>responsibility involved if a pregnancy does occur.  And, this
>responsibility ought to go beyond using some kind of birth control
>method to the knowledge that birth control methods do fail sometimes...

Which leads to abortion, as the alternative one turns to after
contraceptives have failed.  I assume that you think abortion
is irresponsible.  If so, why?

>Again, let me say that reasonable alternatives to abortion must be
>provided -- no woman should ever *have* to get an abortion.

If you want to provide them, I won't stop you.  On the other hand,
you should not try to stop those who wish abortions, although you
should not be required to pay for them.

>>> ... I think that our society would
>>>be much better off helping the women solve their problems and carry
>>>the baby than to provide the "easy" solution of abortion.
>>
>>So you want me (through tax money, I suppose) to pay for other
>>people's children?  Why should I?
>
>Hmmm.  So you *do* know who society is after all...

So a society is a group of people who come together in order to
loot each others' pocketbooks?  Preposterous.

> As for your
>question, you already do pay for other people's children because our
>society has already decided that (born) children are valuable.

Once again, people decide, not society.  Why does the alleged value
of children make it incumbent on me to support them?

>>>Providing alternatives to abortion requires more commitment and more
>>>love, but isn't it worth it?
>>
>>No.  Why do you think it is?
>
>Abortion is destroying our society by lessening the value of a human
>life (if you don't believe me, just keep reading this newsgroup...).

I still don't know why you think that the alleged "value" of human
life is relevant to the abortion question.

>We need to reverse this by learning to value human life

WHAT value?  How does one measure it?

> -- the life of the unborn child as well as the mother

Hmmm.  Baby factory time again.

> -- and help them.

Why?

> We need to
>strenthen the family unit and hold up the ideal that life should be
>created out of love and commitment to the nurturing of that life.

Are you Catholic?  Whether or not, why do all of us have to follow
your idea of the proper mode of life for people?

>  We
>need to teach our young people that sex without love *and* commitment
>is going to lose right quick -- and not just because a pregnancy might
>result...

Who in the H*LL do you think you are going around setting up standards
by which the sexual activities of others are to be measured?!  Do you
*really* think that you own these people?!

>>>... Isn't it better to support life than to kill it???
>>
>>Not at the expense of enslaving women!
>
>"Enslaving women"?  I'm not for enslaving women; only for people
>taking responsibility for their actions.

Forcing a person to use her or his body in a way she or he does not
want is slavery.  BTW, why is abortion irresponsible?

> -Liz Allen

--
"Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs"
Ken Montgomery
...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm  [Usenet, when working]
kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA  [for Arpanauts only]