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: Re: The pregnant criminals
Message-ID: <336@bonnie.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 21-Dec-84 09:51:25 EST
Article-I.D.: bonnie.336
Posted: Fri Dec 21 09:51:25 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 22-Dec-84 02:21:37 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Whippany NJ
Lines: 86

<>

>>>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.

	A fundamental point of disagreement!  The arguments on both
sides of this one have been bantered to death, and I am not clever
enough to add anything new.  Are there irreconcilable differences
of opinion about what rights mothers have over the rights or lives of
fetuses?  Perhaps.

>  Current technology is such that lethal force
>is required; if you don't like this, improve the technology.

Even though I do like it, I am trying to 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?

Yes. Yes, if injured.

>>>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.

The crucial point.  Both men and women should realize that consent to
have sex is consent to possible pregnancy.

>>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.

	"It was an accident.  I got scared and panicked."
	"Aw, c'mon.  There was only a little damage.  I didn't
mean it.  I'll never let it happen again."

I agree that failure to consider consequences is not the same as
consenting, but failure to consider the consequences should not
be considered a legitimate excuse.

>>>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?

	Another fundamental point of disagreement.  Based on moral,
humanitarian, ethical, religious, historical (or any combination thereof)
principles abortion is irresponsible.  Again, this has been
often discussed in this group.

>>People who don't know the consequences of sexual intercourse, shouldn't do it.
>Are you a great sex educator?  Or are people just "supposed to know"?

Irrelevent. Yes!
Proper sex education should be the norm, and not the exception.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs"
>Ken Montgomery

Ed Hummel
"A hapless smurf"