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: <340@bonnie.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 4-Jan-85 09:34:07 EST
Article-I.D.: bonnie.340
Posted: Fri Jan  4 09:34:07 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 5-Jan-85 03:18:29 EST
References: <336@bonnie.UUCP> <1159@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Whippany NJ
Lines: 59

{}
 = 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.

 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.

>> ...
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.

>> ...
 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.  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.  Others such as moral obligation to help the innocent,
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.  You could argue against either the
validity or the applicability of such principles; and you should.

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

Ed Hummel