Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site tove.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!genrad!wjh12!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!tove!liz
From: liz@tove.UUCP (Liz Allen)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: An abortion story
Message-ID: <52@tove.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 29-Nov-84 23:26:08 EST
Article-I.D.: tove.52
Posted: Thu Nov 29 23:26:08 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 2-Dec-84 05:46:55 EST
References: <44@tove.UUCP> <1092@ut-ngp.UUCP> <46@tove.UUCP> <1097@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Reply-To: liz@tove.UUCP (Liz Allen)
Organization: U of Maryland, Laboratory for Parallel Computation, C.P., MD
Lines: 115

>> = Liz Allen
>  = Ken Montgomery

>>Its right to remain in the mother's body against the mother's will is
>>dependant on whether or not its life is valued more than mother's
>>inconvenience to carry the baby to term.
>
>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.

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.

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

See the above...

>>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.

>*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).

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.  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
(or welcoming the risk!) 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...

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

>> ... From the women I've talked to, most would rather carry the baby to
>>term (given that they are now pregnant) or would definitely carry to
>>term if the pregnancy had occurred at some other more convenient time.
>
>This is the exact opposite of what the women I have talked to said.

Perhaps when they either never want to have children or already have
enough, but I don't think I ever remember anyone at the center who
told me that they never wanted to have children -- and most were too
young to have too many already.  On the contrary, most were concerned
about whether or not having an abortion would effect their ability to
have children later on.

>> ... 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...  As for your
question, you already do pay for other people's children because our
society has already decided that (born) children are valuable.  (Now,
the Social Services system needs help -- as do our schools... but
that's different issue.)

>>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...).
We need to reverse this by learning to value human life -- the life of
the unborn child as well as the mother -- and help them.  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.  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...

>>... 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.
-- 
				-Liz Allen

Univ of Maryland, College Park MD	
Usenet:   ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz
Arpanet:  liz@tove (or liz@maryland)

"This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you:  God
 is light; in him there is no darkness at all" -- 1 John 1:5