Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cylixd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!decwrl!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!akgua!akgub!cylixd!charli
From: charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Fetuses, Rights, & Responsibilities
Message-ID: <187@cylixd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 8-Aug-85 21:37:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: cylixd.187
Posted: Thu Aug  8 21:37:56 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 07:16:40 EDT
References: <14936@mgwess.UUCP>
Reply-To: charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips)
Organization: RCA-Cylix Communications Network Inc., Memphis, Tn.
Lines: 62

Thank you, Pete Wilson!  I have read this news-group from time to
time, and I have often wondered if it always followed this script:

Group A: "The fetus is not alive"
Group B: "Yes it is!"
Group A: "Well, so what?  The mother has rights, too!"
Group B: "Well, so what?  The baby has rights, too!"

It is obvious (to all except a few pro-choicers who think with their
ideology instead of their mind) that fetuses are alive.  It is 
equally obvious (to all except a few pro-lifers who think with their
ideology instead of their mind) that it is sometimes necessary to
kill a fetus.  

Most pro-choicers would agree that, in some cases, it is wrong to abort
a fetus.  Most pro-lifers agree that, in some cases, it is not wrong to
abort a fetus.  

For example:

	- Most pro-lifers would agree with pro-choicers that it is
	  right to have an abortion for an ectopic pregnancy.

	- Most pro-choicers would agree with pro-lifers that it is
	  wrong to have an abortion at eight months if a delivery
	  could be performed and the child (fetus, baby, whatever) 
	  saved.

Please note I said "most".  I know their are ideological extremists in
both camps, and I already know what they'll say.  (I'd like one of the
extremists to surprise me, but I don't think that will happen.)

The question is not, who has rights, but how are conflicting rights
to be reconciled.  To make things more difficult, suppose a woman has 
a medical condition that makes it dangerous for her to be pregnant, but
she gets pregnant anyway.  Unlike an ectopic pregnancy, the condition 
is not necessarily lethal to both her and the child.  The doctor says
she will most likely die; whether the baby makes it will depend on
how far she gets along in her pregnancy before it kills her.  Would
it be wrong for her to get an abortion?  Most pro-lifers would say
it was okay, but we'd lose some here, since there's a chance the baby
would make it.  Most pro-choicers would say she's crazy if she doesn't.
(This isn't a hypothetical case, by the way.  It happened to a woman
I knew.  She decided to carry the child, and had the baby prematurely
by Caesarean section.  They both did fine.)

Or, on the other end, suppose a woman finds is seven months pregnant
when she finds out she's a last-minute admission to law school.  The
timing means she'd miss part of the first semester if she has the child,
which would kill her chances of success.  But if she declines the
admission, she'll have to wait another year to start, and she isn't
guaranteed that she'll be admitted to the next year's class.  Would
it be right for her to have an abortion?  Remember, a seven-month
fetus could easily survive a premature delivery.  Many pro-choicers
would think her abortion inadvisable (they might not like the word
"wrong").  Pro-lifers would think this one wrong, period.

A reasonable discussion would try to identify common ground to work
from before waging war.  Is it possible to have a reasonable discussion
in this newsgroup?
					
					charli