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