home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!math.fu-berlin.de!news.netmbx.de!Germany.EU.net!ira.uka.de!gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!louie!udel!gatech!paladin.american.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.ans.net!cmcl2!rnd!smezias
- From: smezias@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion
- Subject: Questions for Mark Pundurs.
- Message-ID: <36038@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU>
- Date: 28 Jan 93 16:29:15 GMT
- References: <lm8oeeINNgrg@ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu> <1993Jan26.090905.26462@hemlock.cray.com> <markp.728235209@joplin.wri.com>
- Organization: NYU Stern School of Business
- Lines: 20
-
- In article <markp.728235209@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark
- Pundurs) writes to Muriel and comes perilously close to advocating
- what I have called the chastity belt theory of forced pregnancy:
-
- >No; their exercise of their rights is circumscribed by their (self-imposed)
- >situation. The mother's right to bodily autonomy ends where the z/e/f's
- >right to life begins.
-
- (1) Please explain what you mean by self-imposed.
-
- (2) Please also explain why this self-imposition merits state
- intervention to compel a legal person to use their bodies to support
- another life.
-
- (3) Please explain your position with respect to: (a) forcing fathers
- to donate kidneys to save their children. (b) forcing a drunk driver
- to donate blood, tissue, or organs to save the life of the victim of
- his driving.
-
- SJM
-