Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mgwess.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!amd!vecpyr!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!mgnetp!mgwess!plw From: plw@mgwess.UUCP (Pete Wilson) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: "rights" to life, and a question Message-ID: <14939@mgwess.UUCP> Date: Wed, 14-Aug-85 19:32:59 EDT Article-I.D.: mgwess.14939 Posted: Wed Aug 14 19:32:59 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 20-Aug-85 02:29:37 EDT References: <661@ttidcc.UUCP> Reply-To: plw@mgwess.UUCP (Wilson,Pete,PL) Organization: AT&T Information Systems - Montgomery Illinois Lines: 56 In article <661@ttidcc.UUCP> regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) writes: > >Imagine for a moment that anytime a man had sex with a woman he faced a >small, but very real, risk that he would be required to: > > Go to the peace corps for 9 months...... > >Now, juggle this scenario as you like to cover things I left out, or to >alter things you consider off base (be careful in your assessment of the >small but real dangers, people. Women do still die in childbirth, and do >still suffer physical damage that affects their entire lives. Some women >suffer a myriad of physical ailments during pregnancy, some breeze through.) > >Now, further reflect that the _requirement_ to go has been declared un- >constitutional. But the bus is coming for you tomorrow. Rights? Whose >rights? > >Adrienne Regard Assuming, as you suggest, that it is the MAN that this risk and obligation applied to and he knew of this risk BEFORE HAND, I would say "Have a nice trip - see you when you get back!". If you're going to gamble, you know you're going to lose sometime. As applying to women, and as I mentioned in a previous article, if YOU are the one that the risk applies to, I would think that you would take every precaution known to humankind to AVOID the consequences - keeping in mind that these precautions also are subject to not working 100% of the time. There seems to be a growing trend to avoid, if at all possible, accepting responsibility for one's own actions and decisions. This avoidance takes the form of many rationalizations - 'I didn't ask to get pregnant', 'The fetus isn't alive', 'I couldn't resist climbing that tree and falling out, and breaking my neck', 'I couldn't resist climbing over that fence and almost drowning in a swimming pool that isn't mine' (you know, the 'attractive nuisance' principle), etc. Now there's an idea - declare sex an attractive nuisance! But the fetus isn't a legal entity, so we can't sue it. We can, however, place blame on it and say 'It made me have sex so it could move in and force me to give it nourishment and protection'! But the fetus isn't alive, so why does it need nourishment and protection? OK, it's alive, but it ain't HUMAN - it's an uninvited parasite! Terrific, call Orkin. This group (the USENET community) is probably the wrong group against which to direct this tirade. It is probably a group of above average, responsible people, who have the wherewithal to exercise some degree of control over their impulses. I also think that an overwhelming majority of this group are NOT advocating abortion-as-birth-control. They, the majority, are saying that abortion is, and should be, a method for relieving an otherwise almost impossible burden from those who are least able to bear it. At least that's what I'd like to think. Pete Wilson AT&T IS CGBS Montgomery Works ..!ihnp4!mgnetp!mgwess!plw