Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttidcc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!regard
From: regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: "rights" to life, and a question
Message-ID: <661@ttidcc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 12-Aug-85 11:43:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: ttidcc.661
Posted: Mon Aug 12 11:43:22 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 14-Aug-85 01:11:28 EDT
Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA.
Lines: 86


>Our society has reached a point where we rarely have to measure one
>life against another in our daily lives.  Many of you are asking us
>to forget/ignore/disbelieve that abortion is almost always measuring
>life against quality of life.  At best you could say that the life
>I am talking about is of little value while the quality of life is
>of more. One or two will continue to insist that the life  I am talking
>about is not only of little value but doesn't even exist.  I cannot
>cope with you.

Steve, you sounded like a thinking person in your posting, and appear to
have considered many important angles of the question.  I agreed with you
most all the way 'til you got here.  Maybe you cannot "cope" with me
personally, but somehow hadn't you better figure out how to cope with the
courts?  Comparisons of life vs. life doesn't hold up legally.  The courts
of our land do not recognise the fetus as being a human life at any stage
prior to birth, even up through the third trimester, so it is not a
question (legally) of the woman's "life" vs. the fetuses "life".  This is a
legal convention, of course, and only tips it's hat to scientific
knowledge, but the courts have to draw lines somewhere for laws to be
effective.  This is the going convention for our US of A.  This convention
can be changed through the concerted effort of a minority of citizens who
convince a majority of voters to see it their way.  Terrorism doesn't help
their cause much, misrepresenting issues doesn't, sensationalism doesn't,
hostility doesn't, ignoring the other satellite issues doesn't.

It's a problem for the people on on that side of the fence.

Even buying the "life vs. life" hypothesis, (which, as I've mentioned, is
NOT the status quo of current government regulation) when one life is
"hostage" to the other life, then it isn't a simple issue of quality vs.
right to exist.  One faces physical, psychological, economic and emotional
risks when one bears a child -- even if one surrenders the child
immediately upon birth into the arms of the benevolent government.
Presuming this is an unintended pregnancy, these risks would be borne by
only one of two partners in the act of conception, and cannot be delegated.
Give a little thought as to why so many women consider this to be an issue
of oppression*:
   1. the courts have determined that the fetus does not have life, yet
   2. others maintain that a woman's life should be subject to the "rights"
      of a legal non-entity.
For the women who feel that fetuses have rights -- no problem, they can go
ahead and bear it.  For the women who feel that fetuses do not have rights
(along with the courts) -- too bad.  Other people say you gotta have it.

(*this is only ONE part of the objection to the anti-abortion movement, in
my opinion, comprendez? I don't make any claims for what women on the whole
think, and I don't consider this to be the _central_ objection.  Now let's
go on.)

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.  He doesn't know where, and the
	"why" of the peace corps effort isn't his concern, and would make no
	difference to his required attendence.  It may not be a bad tour
	-- he may spend the entire 9 months in an office, and not
        have to do anything particularly stressful.  He may, of course,
        have to spend the 9 months cutting down palm fronds in a steamy
        jungle, or get severely dehydrated on a desert somewhere, and may
        contract physical ailments that may or may not be treatable.  He
        does know that he will face at least one physically taxing and
        dangerous battle in which there is a small by real chance that he
        could die, before he gets to come home.  He doesn't know what
        effect his "peace corps leave" will have on his career, and he
        doesn't get to postpone his tour of duty until it is convenient for
        his employer/career/education.  He knows that he will face a
        negative social stigma for having gone.  He may have residual
        physical, psychological and emotional effects to deal with.  He may
        have to bring home an orphan with him, but he may get away with
        leaving it in the peace corps country.  He does not get to "appeal"
        because he isn't a volunteer.  Also, not everybody has to do this,
        just a random sample.  There are some methods for avoiding this
        tour, but they are not foolproof.

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