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