NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/48800

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-20 | 8.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!cs.widener.edu!eff!news.oc.com!lgc.com!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!cs.ubc.ca!alberta!kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca!access.usask.ca!mizar.cc.umanitoba.ca!ciit85.ciit.nrc.ca!brandonu.ca!mcbeanb
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: ATUI: The Liberal Position, and Why it is Morally Incorrect
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Date: 19 Nov 92 13:06:03 CST
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
Lines: 168

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Robert S. Parker) writes:
[...]
> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>     The liberal, or pro-choice position may be described as one that
>>allows abortion to be performed if the potential mother desires it.
>>Although many pro-choicers will say this is the unconditional right
>>of the woman to control her body, it does not necesarily mean they
>>approve of abortion as a primary means of birth control.  The pro-choicer
>>will often strive for abortion-on-demand practices so the woman has
>>no constraints in the manner she wishes to govern her body.
>
> Others of us accept as a given that a woman has the right to control her body
> so long as she does not violate the rights of another person, and save our
> efforts for showing the real reason that abortion is not wrong:  a fetus is
> *not* a person and thus has no "rights".

I never suggested a fetus had rights, nor did I suggest the fetus is a person.
[...]
>>     A more convincing liberal argument comes from the appeal to a woman's
>>right to have control over her body.  Indeed, many pro-choicers liken the
>>fetus to an unwanted parasite,
>
> No, they only do that for *unwanted* fetuses. (feti?)

Fetuses, not feti, and certainly not fettishes.

> [Violinist analogy]
>>First of all, the argument may only be applied to victims of rape,
>>because in the analogy the victim is forced into the situation.
>
> I don't see it.  It can very easily be adapted to other situations.  Suppose
> the Society of Music Lovers (or whatever it was) was looking for "volunteers".
> They would go to a singles bar and look for nice-looking women.  They would
> talk to this woman about saving this violinist.  She thinks it sounds like a
> good cause.  It wouldn't inconvenience her and she would feel good about it.

This can only be applied to severely under-educated women.

> They didn't tell her that she would be connected to the violinist for nine
> months.  Fortunately she was smart enough to ask a lawyer about it.
> Unfortunately, he was out-of-it and gave her bad advice.  She signed the
> consent form and they connect her up to the violinist.  Now they all leave,
> never to see her or the violinist again and she realizes that she is stuck with
> this guy attatched to her for 9 months.  (I don't know what's supposed to
> happen in 9 months that would end it...oh well, use your imagination.)
> This is quite parallel to the situation of a woman being seduced for a one-
> night-stand using birth-control (the lawyer) that failed.

?  This is *really* stretching it.  I'm sure the average woman would have
some idea that pregnancy could be an inconvenience.  The lawyer is birth
control?  Birth control doesn't give advice, it offers a good chance
of contraception.  There's always a chance of failure.

>She did *not*
> consent to the attatchment even though she agreed to what she thought was just
> a one-time donation.  The lawyer was thrown in as a birth-control analogy,
> though it is not necessary to the point.  It is absurd to force her to be
> attatched to the violinist for *any* length of time, and it is equally absurd
> to force a woman to carry a child that resulted from an unexpected, unwanted
> pregnancy.

I never suggested women should be forced to carry a fetus to term for any
reason.

>>Second, actual pregnancy does not force a woman to stay in bed the
>>entire nine months she carries the fetus.
[...]
> Keven took care of this one pretty well.

He did a good job of clarifying that pregnancy is hellish, but he didn't show
that pregnancy forces a woman to be bedridden for 9 months.

[people seeds analogy]
>Yes, but the same analogy without the screens can be made.  They still have the
> right to remove the seeds from the carpeting if they do so soon enough.

But they should feel partly obligated not to do so in order to protect the
potential person.  I never said they must waive their rights.

>I would expect that the cost of such a removal would be much higher than
>the cost of installing the screens, so that most intelligent people would
>realize that the screens would be a "better" way to go.  That does not mean
>that those who neglected to install screens can't get the more expensive
>removal.  My arguments for legal abortion do not require an obvious attempt
>to avoid pregnancy.  Avoiding pregnancy in the first place is another issue.

I was not discussing legalities.

>>                        Why is abortion allowable in this case?  How
>>can you decide to abort a fetus simply because the probability of
>>conception was extremely small?  When engaging in coitus, there is always
>>at least a minute chance of pregnancy occurring, and potential parents
>>should not be able to abort simply because they didn't thiink a pregnancy
>>was possible.
>
> In this post and in your previous post you make a lot of arguments about
> potential-people, and how a 1% probability is on one side while an 80% (your
> claim, I say it's more like 50%) is on the other.  Now you are trying to say
> that a 1% chance is important too?  You *KNOW* how rediculous that is, you
> even said so before!

I never said it wasn't rediculous.  Note I never made any reasonable inkling
as to why it would be immoral to abort.  It is just my opinion that it
should be avoided, and I have no reason to back it.

> The FACT is adult humans (not to mention teenagers, etc) *do* have sex, don't
> always use birth-control, and still *most of the time* don't get pregnant.
> (Even without using birth-control, pregnancy doesn't occur very often.)

Please do not lecture to me about things I already know.

> Thus adult humans (not to mention teenagers, etc) *will* have sex and do not
> have any reason to expect that it *will* result in a pregnancy.  (Most people
> know that it *can*, but many usually ignore it.)  The philosophy of the
> "extreem" pro-choice is that even consenting to sex and neglecting to use
> birth control does not imply consent to pregnancy.  The woman in that situation
> *still* has the right to chose an abortion.

I never said she didn't.
[...]
>>How can anyone, or anything only have a partial right
>>to life?  Rights seem to only be applicable if they are either present,
>>or not.  There are no half rights.
>
> Exactly.  Either something has them, or it doesn't.  Since the fetus (which
> is not really a person) does not have an equal right (M.A.Warren's belief,
> which I happen to agree with, and you don't effectively refute), it--in fact--
> has *no* rights.

Why would I attempt to refute the fact that a fetus has no rights?  When did
I say a fetus had any rights?
[...]
>>                                    Also, if this argument is deemed
>>true, then infanticide becomes just as acceptable as abortion
>>supposedly is.  It is very difficult to prove that a newborn baby
>>is actually a person,
>
> If you want to use this reasoning to legalize infanticide (with the consent of
> all people who have come in contact with the child) I won't stand in your
> way.

I'd be quite sure to stand in my way.

> I think the restriction for the consent-of-all is sufficient to ensure
> that legal infanticide won't really occur.

And you are willing to take the chance that you might be wrong?  Infanticide
is nasty.  Why allow it to happen in any case?  There must be plenty of
single parents out there with ideas of infanticide at one time or another.

>It is also consistent with my
> position on abortion, since only the mother has "come in contact" with the
> fetus.  To kill an infant without the consent of all people who have come in
> contact with the infant (especially relatives) violates *their* rights.  (They
> are people, and thus have rights, including the right to continue their
> relationship with this child.)

I don't think anyone except the mother has any right to continue their
relationship with the child.
[...]
> last pig for food?  The *person* has a right to live.  The pig does not.  The
> person *should not* kill the pig, unless there is a *good reason* [...]

This analogy is quite disgusting.  The fetus is analogous to the pig.  What
sort of mother-to-be would abort so she could eat the remains?

Brian McBean  -  [e-mail]