Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site uscvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!uscvax!kurtzman
From: kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: A reply to Dave Messer on the humanity issue
Message-ID: <62@uscvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 17-Oct-85 13:27:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: uscvax.62
Posted: Thu Oct 17 13:27:47 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 26-Oct-85 04:49:15 EDT
References: <464@spice.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA>
Reply-To: kurtzman@usc-cse.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman)
Organization: CS&CE Depts, U.S.C., Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 28

In article <464@spice.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA> tdn@spice.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Thomas Newton) writes:
>The fetus does not conceive itself.  Two other people conceive it.  Except
>in the case of rape, one can't say 'I had no choice in the matter; this is
>being forced upon me'.  If the fetus is human, you have no right to make it
>leave your body at the cost of its life, since you were one of the people who
>put it there and killing it would be a violation of its rights.
>
>If you fire a gun in the general direction of a crowd and one of the bullets
>hits someone, you're responsible for the injury done to that person, even if
>you didn't mean to hit anybody.  This involves, at a minimum, getting medical
>care for him/her.  With respect to avoiding pregnancy, having sex is similar
>to firing a gun:  although there are ways to reduce the risk of the activity
>(looking to see if anyone else is around <-> using contraceptives), some risk
>still remains.  Although killing the gunshot victim or aborting the fetus may
>seem like 'convenient' ways of dealing with an unwanted outcome, neither is
>acceptable on the general principle that people shouldn't pay with their lives
>for other people's mistakes.

You are talking out of both sides of your hat. First you say that except for
the case of rape a woman is responsible for conception. Are there no gray
levels? Then you start using legal analogies. The law is filled with ideas
that address subtle differences in circumstances. It uses concepts such as
"intent", "reasonable doubt", "ordinary care", etc. So, let me mix together
the two sides of your hat: What if two people did everything within their
power not to conceive and their method(s) of contraception failed. From a
legal perspective they had no intent, and used extraordinary care to prevent
conception. Are they really responsible for circumstances beyond their
control? Legally the answer would probably be no.