NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53512

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-30 | 5.0 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!hri.com!noc.near.net!black.clarku.edu!vax.clarku.edu!hsims
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: RE: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 30 Dec 92 15:12:09 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: Clark University
Lines: 100

In a previous article, [e-mail] (Paul Lebow) wrote:
>In article <[e-mail]>
>[e-mail] (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Paul Lebow)
>writes:
>> > In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>> >
>> > > Do you know of any way to give rights to a fetus without taking away
>> > rights
>> > > from the pregnant woman?
>>
>> > The question pre-supposes the conclusion that
>> >
>> > 1) all rights by definition are inviolate
>>
>> No it doesn't.  It clearly refers to a conflict and does not say anything
>> about rights being inviolate.  Support your assertion, please.
>
>No.  Heather is concerned about the taking away or violation of a mother's
>rights.  I see no problem with one set of rights overriding another.  My
>question is, "why ask the question, its irrelavent?"

Of course it's relevant.  Maybe not to you, since men named Paul are not
likely to be forced to continue pregnancies against their will.  You have a
right to decide who you will support with your bodily resources - for example,
if you are the only bone-marrow match for a child dying of Leukemia, you have
a right to refuse to donate.  Why do you feel pregnant women should not have a
right to refuse to have their bodies used to support a fetus?

>> > 2) the rights of the unborn child will automatically conflict with the
>> > mother.

I disagree with this.  The conflict exists only in cases where the woman does
not wish to continue the pregnancy.

>> No it does not.  It clearly speaks of giving rights to a fetus
>> and asks how to do so without taking rights from the mother.  Your
>> remark speaks of existing rights.  Heather's clearly refers to rights
>> not yet provided.
>
>No, I am speaking of the rights that I feel SHOULD be accorded the unborn.

Well, I asked the original question, and I was refering to rights that fetuses
do not currently have.  Can you answer the question I asked instead of
changing it to suit your purposes?

>> > 3) the pregnant woman has, by definition, higher priority rights than
>> > others.
>>
>> No, the question makes no statement whatsoever with regard to
>> priority.  It asks about a potential conflict. ...
>
>Again, Heather is concerned about the MOTHER losing rights.  She seems to
>hold no remorse for the fact that the unborn has effectively no rights.

Where did I say that pregnant women should have higher priority rights than
others?  I think pregnant women should have the SAME rights as every other
citizen of this country, including the right to refuse to have their bodies
used against their will.

>> I hope that it is clearer for you now.
>>
>> Dean Kaflowitz
>>
>Dean -
>I appreciate the sincerity of you response, and the lack of ivectives.
>You do miss my point, which I admit may not be clear.  I have been paying
>attention to t.a. for well over a year now and see these discussions rise
>and set over and over.  In the guise of rational discussion, language is
>used which implies, assumes and presupposes certain meanings.  If I, as an
>anti-abortion proponent answer these questions without first pointing out
>these implicit assumptions, I have lost the argument regardless of what I
>say.
>
>For Heather to raise the question begs another:
>
>Why is the discussion of conflict of rights relavent to the legalization
>of abortion?  We, as Americans, deal with the prioritization of rights as
>a matter of course without raising an eyebrow.  To raise the question
>implies that somehow the unborn child represents a special case, and
>therefore, making abortion illegal again would somehow force society to
>live by a new and bizarre set of rules.  This is, of course, false.
>
>Heather's question has an obvious and trivial answer: Take the case of the
>born child vs mother.  How does society deal with the rights of these
>individuals now?  Since I see no difference between a born vs unborn
>child, the same resolution of rights applies.

In the case of child vs. mother, if the mother doesn't want to raise the child
she can put him/her up for adoption s/he will be raised by someone else.  It's
kind of hard to do that with an 8 week old fetus.

There is a big difference between fetuses and children.  A fetus lives inside
a woman and creates significant health risks for the woman.  A fetus is 100%
dependent on that one woman.  A child, on the other hand, is not inside a
woman's body, and he/she can be fed and taken care of by any number of people.

>-Paul

                .... Heather.