From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
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.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 93 17:20:43 GMT

In article <aidler.725874748@sanjuan> aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler) writes:
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>In article <aidler.725611282@sanjuan> aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler) writes:
>
>>Bull. We have a phsycian who can determine the medical factors, and a
>>woman who can determine her own needs. We don't need anything more.
>
>>>I don't know how abortions are supervised in your
>>>area (Virginia?), but here in B.C. there are people
>>>who demand community clinics independent of hospitals
>>>to provide for "women's health."
>>>They would not supervise births or any form of natal
>>>care other than abortions.
>>>What are these clinics likely to recommend to 
>>>a pregnant woman appearing at their door?
>>>
>>A woman who is going to an abortion clinic has already decided what
>>she wants. Who are you to tell her what to do with her body?
>
>A pregnant woman has some responsibility to the child
>within her.  Since the child is in no position to assert
>his or her rights, government has the duty to institute
>reasonable procedures to protect him or her.
>
The womans first responsibility is to herself, adn that means doing
what is best for her. If that means having an abortion, then that is
her choice.

>>There is no child in this discussion, only a fetus.
>>Do try to get your facts straight.
>
>Parents have children.
>The fetus is the pregnant woman's child.
>Your efforts to diminish this with vocabularly
>don't change the facts.
>
Parents have children. Children are people. Children are also born. A
fetus is not a child. Nor is an embryo, a zygote, or a wandering sperm
cell.
Your efforts to claim differently fail miserably, when they are backed
up by no evidence at all.

>>>Someone needs to independently judge that all parties
>>>are fulfilling their obligations to the best of their 
>>>abilities.
>>>
>>Abortion is a responsible way to handle an undesirable pregnancy. If
>>you contend otherwise, please presen evidence, not Truth by Blatant
>>Assertion.
>
>Abortion may or may not be a responsible action to take.
>Why is the pregnancy undesirable?
>Have the best interests of the mother and child been
>considered?
>Compassion for both demands that evidence of this
>needs to be provided to an independent party.
>
The only person capable of determining the desirability of the
pregnancy is the woman who is pregnant.
Compassion for the woman demands that she retain her right to control
the uses of her own body.

However, since you are proposing removing her right to do so, and
suggesting that she should be forced to carry an unwated fetus to
term, how do you propose to deal with that featus when it is
eventually born? Are you, personally, prepared to adopt it?
Further, since you are mandating that a woman's body must be used to
support this fetus, despite the wishes of the woman, do you also
mandate legislation that would force the donation of blood, tissues,
and organs?


--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
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.
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52667 talk.religion.misc:24420 alt.atheism:24179