Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site bonnie.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!emh
From: emh@bonnie.UUCP (Edward M. Hummel)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: The pregnant criminals
Message-ID: <329@bonnie.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 16-Dec-84 14:09:19 EST
Article-I.D.: bonnie.329
Posted: Sun Dec 16 14:09:19 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 17-Dec-84 03:25:42 EST
References: <46@tove.UUCP> <1097@ut-ngp.UUCP> <393@gitpyr.UUCP> <1126@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Whippany NJ
Lines: 45

<>

>A person's claim to rights, however, is valid if and
>only if that person has not violated the rights of another.  It does
>not matter whether the fetus was invited into the woman's body; it
>has no right to remain after her consent to its presence ends.  Thus
>the fetus, not its mother, is the violator of the rights of another
>in the case of an unwanted pregnancy.
	Does this necessarily imply that that mother has the
"right" to kill the fetus?

...

>So a pregnant woman is, in principle, the same as a criminal, since
>her rights are to be restricted to prevent her from "harming others"?
>The criminal is being restricted from doing harm.  The mother is being
>required to render aid to a parasite within her body, which she would
>prefer to have removed.
	Maybe the mother is a criminal, in a sense.  At the time of
conception she committed the "grave" offense of engaging in sexual
intercourse without being prepared and committed to accept the possible
consequences (pregnancy).

>The fetus has no contractual claim on the woman's body, thus no
>right to her resources.  If you can require people to meet
>obligations which they did not undertake by entering into contracts,
>then you can require anything of anyone -- you have demolished the
>standard of proper requirement (*voluntary* consent).
	Excepting rape, voluntary consent has been acquired.
Changing one's mind later or admitting that the consequences had
not been considered beforehand is similar to the excuses that
hit-and-run drivers use.

...

>Nor did the fetus get there *entirely* by the woman's volition.
>(I won't re-hash contraceptive failures, etc.)
	Contraceptive failures don't dismiss responsibility.
Both men and women should understand the risks in using contraceptives
and be prepared to accept the results of failure.  People who don't
know what are the consequences of sexual intercourse, shouldn't do it.
						(find the catch-22)
>Ken Montgomery

Ed Hummel