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]