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!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm From: kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: The pregnant criminals Message-ID: <1140@ut-ngp.UUCP> Date: Tue, 18-Dec-84 10:12:03 EST Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.1140 Posted: Tue Dec 18 10:12:03 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 21-Dec-84 00:28:29 EST References: <1126@ut-ngp.UUCP> <329@bonnie.UUCP> Organization: U.Texas Computation Center, Austin, Texas Lines: 66 [] >> me > Ed Hummel >>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? The mother has the right to remove the fetus from her property whenever she wants. Current technology is such that lethal force is required; if you don't like this, improve the technology. > ... > 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). Are you "prepared and commited to accept the possible consequences" of driving? Won't you seek medical aid if you have a car accident? >>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. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. The woman has consented to the momentary presence of a man, *not* to presence of a child. >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. Really? Would you quote some hit-and-run drivers so that the rest of us can judge for ourselves? BTW, failing to consider possible consequences is not the same as consenting to them. >... > >>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. Why is carrying the child to term the only responsible way to handle accidental pregnancy? In other words, why is abortion irresponsible? Why should people "accept the results" of accidents? > People who don't >know what are the consequences of sexual intercourse, shouldn't do it. Are you a great sex educator? Or are people just "supposed to know"? -- "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" Ken Montgomery ...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]