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!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm
From: kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: An abortion story
Message-ID: <1097@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 28-Nov-84 13:34:51 EST
Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.1097
Posted: Wed Nov 28 13:34:51 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Nov-84 19:11:45 EST
References: <44@tove.UUCP> <1092@ut-ngp.UUCP> <46@tove.UUCP>
Organization: U.Texas Computation Center, Austin, Texas
Lines: 82

[]

>[Liz Allen]
>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)?

>I would also like to point out that here you do think the development
>of the child's brain is relevant and the actions of the child throughout
>the narrative would indicate a fairly high amount of brain activity
>(relative to the typical picture of next to none which is argued by
>the pro-choice side).

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

>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? :-)

>Because if society decides it has a vested interest in its unborn (as
>it has decided for the born), then it may decide that that the
>unborn's life is more important than the woman's resultant
>inconvenience and make abortion illegal.

*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).

>I'm not sure that I have the right, but I do believe society does.  I
>don't mean that society doesn't have any responsibilities towards the
>woman, but I do believe it has a responsibility to protect the life of
>the unborn.

Society is not a person; thus it cannot have rights or responsibilities.

> ... 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.

> ... 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?

> I also
>think that option of adoption is rejected too quickly.  I know that it
>is difficult to give up a baby for adoption, but in the long run it
>could well be a better solution both for the woman and the child in
>the cases where the woman knows she is not ready to take on the
>responsibility of raising a child.  

How about not giving birth to the child in the first place?

>Providing alternatives to abortion requires more commitment and more
>love, but isn't it worth it?

No.  Why do you think it is?

> (I know, I know, this is an emotional
>appeal... but isn't it better to support life than to kill it???)

Not at the expense of enslaving women!

> -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]