NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53784

Text File | 1993-01-01 | 4.4 KB | 105 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!mcochran
From: [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
    of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
    control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Sender: [e-mail] (netnews admin account)
Organization: None worth mentioning.
References: <aidler.725614614@sanjuan> <[e-mail]> <aidler.725880734@sanjuan>
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 93 17:31:21 GMT
Lines: 90

In article <aidler.725880734@sanjuan> [e-mail] (E Alan Idler) writes:
>[e-mail] (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.
>
You keep repeating this nonsense about parents having obligations to
their children. Fine and dandy. What you have completely and totally
failed to do is provide even the smallest shred of evidence that the
fetus is a child.

>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.
>
In which case, you won't object to woman lying, and saying they were
raped in order to obtain an abortion, will you?

>>>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.
>
You still haven't figured out that nobody buys into Truth by Blatant
Assertion have you? Try dealing in facts, if you have any hope of ever
being taken seriously.

>>>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.
>
Since 2/3 of all fertlized eggs fail to develop to a point at which
they could be born, we may conclude that, since it is the most common
result of fertilization, that a terminated pregnancy is also natural.
It's nice to see, however, that you are not concerned with the trauma
to the womans body, and are quite willing to force her to carry an
unwanted fetus.

>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.
>
Are you another one who has never heard of contraceptive failure? Are
you under the miustaken impression that sterilization procedures are
foolproof?
You really should come out of Happy Bunny Land (tm) and visit the real
world sometime.

--
                  Mark Cochran          [e-mail]
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.