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!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm
From: kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: The pregnant criminals
Message-ID: <1196@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 16-Jan-85 01:54:41 EST
Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.1196
Posted: Wed Jan 16 01:54:41 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 20-Jan-85 00:36:12 EST
References: <336@bonnie.UUCP> <1159@ut-ngp.UUCP> <340@bonnie.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: U.Texas Computation Center, Austin, Texas
Lines: 105

[Ironic subject line, since the woman is the victim...]

>From: emh@bonnie.UUCP (Edward M. Hummel)
> = previous Ken Montgomery material
>H*  = previous Hummel stuff
>>> ...
>H* Maybe the mother is a criminal, in a sense.  At the time of
>H* conception she committed the "grave" offense of engaging in sexual
>H* intercourse without being prepared and committed to accept the possible
>H* 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?
>H* Yes. Yes, if injured.
> Then don't you think it inconsistent to deny medical aid of
> abortion to a woman who has become pregnant accidentally?
>
>No.

Oh.  I rest my case on this one.  Obviously Mr. Hummel enjoys
the use of a different sort of logic than what I'm used to.

> Is it really consistent to deny her the possibility of 
> recovering from that accident quickly?
>
>I repeat, it is not inconsistent.  Once the life of the fetus becomes
>involved other considerations come into play and the car accident
>analogy breaks down.

All analogies have their breaking points... but this one isn't there
yet.  The fetus is in the wrong here; its unwilling mother did *not*
give it permission to begin using her resources.  There is no "other
consideration" which overrides a person's right to give or withhold
her resources as she wills.

>>> ...
>H* 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.
>H* The crucial point.  Both men and women should realize that consent to
>H* have sex is consent to possible pregnancy.
> Nobody should "realize" anything that is false.
>
>I agree.  Nobody should "realize" anything that is false.

Then nobody should "realize" that consent to sex is consent to
pregnancy (possible or actual); it isn't.

>>> ...
> 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?
>H* Another fundamental point of disagreement.  Based on moral,
>H* humanitarian, ethical, religious, historical (or any combination thereof)
>H* principles abortion is irresponsible.  Again, this has been
>H* often discussed in this group.
> The bald claim that abortion is irresponsible has been made in
> this group, but it has not, in my recollection, been supported.
> In other words, *what* moral, humanitarian, etc. principles?
>
>Perhaps I should leave this for the people who have made the claims
>to answer.

Like yourself?

    "Based on moral, ... principles abortion is irresponsible."

This is exactly such a claim.

> In my view the principle most important, and perhaps the
>basis for most of the principles used as arguments, is the sanctity of
>human life.

Why does the "sanctity of human life" forbid abortion?  Does the
woman's life have less sanctity than than of the fetus?

> Others such as moral obligation to help the innocent,

Unwanted fetuses are not innocent; try "thief".  (Not that this
alleged obligation has any force, per se...)

>religious doctrine that explicitly forbids abortion, etc. are not
>nearly as widely accepted, although they can form a legitimate basis
>for a 'pro-life' view.

That depends on whom you ask.  Anyway, 'pro-life' is a misnomer;
it really should be something more like 'pro-pregnancy-to-term'.

> You could argue against either the
>validity or the applicability of such principles; and you should.

I am.

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

--
The above viewpoints are mine.  They are unrelated to
those of anyone else, including my cats and my employer.

Ken Montgomery  "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs"
...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm  [Usenet, when working]
kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA  [for Arpanauts only]