Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-spice.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-spice!tdn
From: tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re*2: Good Fallout
Message-ID: <206@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 6-Dec-84 21:58:21 EST
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-s.206
Posted: Thu Dec  6 21:58:21 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Dec-84 06:32:27 EST
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 62

>> = ???
>  = Ken Montgomery
   = me (Thomas Newton)

[]
>> ... My intention was to mean that, once it was
>> determined that a woman was pregnant, that there was another life involved
>> that just the woman's convenience, and in this case, there IS a duty
>> involved!  just as much a duty as that a father SHOULD support his children!

>Why does anyone have the duty to support anyone else?

Ken, have you heard of a concept called RESPONSIBILITY?  This concept has a
LEGAL basis as well as a MORAL basis . . . since children are considered to
be incompetent to take care of themselves, the responsibility for their care
falls first upon their natural parents (who CAUSED them to exist), then upon
adoptive parents (if any)(who EXPLICITLY assume responsibility), and finally
upon the state (by default or in child abuse cases) (since children CANNOT BE
EXPECTED to look out for themselves and since our society has hopefully risen
above the "law of the jungle").

>> but once another
>> human life is involved, her rights are naturally restricted,

> You are not just talking about restricting her rights --
> you are talking about forcing her to aid someone who has
> no claim on her!

Unless the woman was raped, a fetus which is considered to be a "human being"
(we can definitely say that this happens sometime >= conception and <= birth)
has a legitimate claim on BOTH of its natural parents which far outweighs any
inconvenience on their parts.  Birth control methods are KNOWN to be fallable,
so you can't say that a fetus is "trespassing" if the woman consented to sex.

The case of pregnancies resulting from rape is really nasty since the fetus
who is "trespassing" is innocent and not responsible for its actions.  In
this case, the woman should not be forced to actively support the fetus, but
every attempt should be made to perform a "live" abortion.  If the fetus dies,
the rapist should be faced with a manslaughter charge (he caused its death in
much the same way that careless drivers cause the deaths of other people).  If
it lives, the rapist should be forced to pay for the cost of its upbringing.

>> ...
>>      Do not, by the way, in the great rush to free women from the "slavery"
>> of pregnancy, give them the extraordinary power of summary execution,

> You don't think people should be able to use lethal force to protect
> themselves from intruders, if necessary?

If you kill a three-year-old child who is trespassing in your back yard, I
suspect that the courts will not only reject your claim of "self-protection"
but will find you guilty of premeditated murder.  Especially if you had set
out soda pop, cookies, etc. in your back yard just before the kid came over
(whether or not you closed the gate and put up a barbed wire fence).

Now if the three-year old was holding a loaded gun pointed at you and was
about to pull the trigger, your action would be justified though regrettable.
This corresponds to the case of a fetus which is posing an imminent threat to
the life of its mother (very complicated pregnancies and some pregnancies that
occur in very young teenagers).

                                        Thomas Newton