home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!destroyer!cs.ubc.ca!news.UVic.CA!sanjuan!aidler
- From: aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler)
- Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
- Message-ID: <aidler.725880734@sanjuan>
- Sender: news@sol.UVic.CA
- Nntp-Posting-Host: sanjuan.uvic.ca
- Organization: University of Victoria
- References: <aidler.725417859@sanjuan> <1992Dec28.115856.25977@hemlock.cray.com> <aidler.725614614@sanjuan> <1992Dec29.161612.29567@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
- Date: 1 Jan 93 09:32:14 GMT
- Lines: 82
-
- mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
-
- >The only expert opinion needed is the womans. It's her body, and if
- >she doesn't want to feed a fetus, then she has the right to remove it.
-
- Parents have an obligation to their children.
- Since no one other than the pregnant woman can
- provide for her child at this stage of his or
- her life, whatever obligations exist are
- conferred to her.
- She accepted this responsibility when she
- consented to sexual relations -- unless she
- did not comprehend the consequences of her actions.
-
- Yes, you may infer that I would object to government
- impairing the right of sexually assaulted women
- to terminate an undesired pregnancy.
- All simple statement that she did not consent to
- sexual relations would suffice.
-
- >>>>Therefore, the *only* way to provide an independent
- >>>>ajudication of these rights and do the best for all considered
- >>>>is to have the state provide an impartial tribunal to
- >>>>evaluate the situation.
- >>
- >>>This is not best for the woman. Even when her request
- >>>is granted, she would be subjected to humiliating and
- >>>demeaning inquisition by strangers who may not always
- >>>have her best interests at heart.
- >>
- >>If there is a procedure to make this operate while
- >>preserving the dignity of those involved, I'd certainly
- >>entertain it because it would be more likely that
- >>people would support it.
- >>Could the woman be given the option of remaining
- >>anonymous?
- >>
- >Yeah, right. Wake up.
-
- I only include this exchange to give you another
- chance to contribute to the discussion.
-
- >>When there is time to consider everyone's rights,
- >>it is our responsibility to do so.
- >You have yet to demonstrate that there are any rights here to be
- >considered other then the womans. A fetus is not a person, and has no
- >rights.
-
- What right have you to consign a fetus to
- less than person status?
- The fetus has some rights to be balanced against
- those of the mother. Meanwhile, the mother has
- certain responsibilities towards her child.
-
- >>Moreover, those women capable of delivering healthy
- >>children need the reassurance that they and their
- >>children will have some security in their futures.
- >>
- >So why do you think a woman has no purpose other then to deliver
- >healthy children? Perhaps she simply does not *want* to have children.
- >In such a situation, it is her right to remove the fetus.
-
- A parent has certain obligations regarding their
- children. A pregnant woman is already a parent.
- Her right to remove the fetus must be evaluated
- against her child's right to continue its
- existence. The normal bodily changes experienced
- during a pregnancy or the expected cost of raising
- a child do not qualify as sufficient cause for
- expelling a fetus because this is what occurs
- naturally in a process the woman freely initiated.
-
- People (men and women) who do not want to have
- children should abstain from sexual relations
- (if they desire to curtail their children
- for a time) or undergo sterilization (if they
- decide they are finished forever).
- Those practicing birth control should read the
- little booklets they enclose so they will know
- their expected pregnancy risk.
-
- A IDLER
-