From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Abortion vs. Adoption
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 23:32:32 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


fo>In article <1992Sep9.135032.14516@sniap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de () writes:
dk>dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:

dk> I no longer have your post I was responding to.  As I remember it, you
dk> said if there was one woman that felt O.K. about her own abortion
dk> experience, then you would not consider abortion = murder.  Now I may
dk> have assumed to much.  I may have assumed that at the time you did
dk> believe abortion was murder.  All you asked for was one and Kathi
dk> supplied you with the one example.  Could we at least now resolve
dk> if you do or don't believe abortion=murder?

fo>I believe that it can be shown that cases exist where abortion is not  
fo>only not murder, but not wrong, and I believe that by putting the case 
fo>in terms of the woman's own conscience, it can be shown in such a way 
fo>that believers of many faiths and none cannot reasonably refute it.

I avoid arguments that deal with the rightness or wrongness of abortion. 
I think in our discussion, I have gotten somewhat embroiled in such a
discussion.  My reason for participating in this discussion is in 
regards to keeping abortion legal.  I believe your paragraph above
demonstrates a good reason why abortion should remain legal.
 
fo>And by the way, it's scary that pro-choicers would pick up on 
fo>such a proposal  as a *pro-life* argument.  It reads a little 
fo>like "Oh my God, not the conscience thing again, that can only 
fo>be a pro-life argument, because everyone knows women have guilty 
fo>consciences about their abortions...".  I can only assume that with 
fo>the exception of Kathi you all got a little flame happy.
 
If I flamed you I apologize.  You seem like a fairly reasonable person.
At times we may be a wee bit quick to flame.  I know I have used 
flames on numerous occasions to get my point across.  There are many 
tools to get a point across and flames can be one of them.  
 
Many of us might have assumed you were pro-life originally.  Your
post I responded to said that abortion=murder unless such and
such can be proven.  Pro-lifers often come in this forum and 
declare abortion=murder with no logic or argument to support this
claim.  Such a statement, with out any reasonable support can lead
to flamage from many of us who are tired of using rational arguments
against such mindless drivel.
 
fo>You said that there is a conflict between the rights of the fetus 
fo>(to life) and the rights of the mother (to control her own body).   
fo>That's fine, but do you see the rights of the fetus represented in 
fo>this setup?

fo>In fact, your position is only tenable if you believe that a fetus has
fo>no rights whatsoever. A reasonable view to hold, but not in conjunction
fo>with the notion that the fetus has a right to life!  In fact, you do 
fo>_not_ believe the fetus has a right to life, not ever.  Because if the woman 
fo>is always left to choose, the fetus has no representation at all, and that
fo>doesn't worry you.  

I think my position is tenable even though I believe a fetus has a right 
to life.  In the majority of cases, the woman' right to bodily autonomy 
and the fetus's right to life do not conflict.  The rights can co-exist 
with no problem.  However, when there is a conflict, I see only two 
possible resolutions. Either a compromise can be reached between the two 
rights or a decision has to be reached over whos rights are more 
compelling.  In the case of the conflict of an unwanted pregnancy, the 
compromise could be to convince the woman to voluntarily give up her
right to her body.  I support many methods that would try to reach this
end.  However, if compromise is not possible, then we must decide if
the woman's right is more compelling or the fetus.  One of them is 
going to lose their rights.  I have stated in the past, and will be happy
to again, why I believe the woman's rights are more compelling.

fo>And in fact the belief that the fetus possesses rights (of any kind) 
fo>does not seem compatible with a belief in "the woman's right to choose".  
fo>You can't believe in both, you have to pick one.  Unless you believe 
fo>that the rights of the fetus are always outweighed by those of the 
fo>woman (another reasonable view), in which case those rights of the fetus 
fo>seem rather academic.  Why grant someone a right, when you will never allow 
fo>them to exercise it?

I see the fetus having a right to life, but I don't see it having the 
right to use a woman's body against her will.  So by recognizing both
rights, but giving the woman's rights a higher priority, I recognize the 
need for the early termination of a pregnancy.  However, since the fetus
still retains it's right, if it is possible to remove the fetus with out
taking its right to life, then that should be attempted.  I don't see 
the woman's right to her body giving her the right to arbitrarily kill
the fetus.  However, since most abortions are performed prior to viability,
or when it would take extraordinary measures to save a fetus, then I trust
the doctors judgement that killing the fetus is the safest way to perform
the abortion.  If the fetus has no possible way to survive without using
the woman's body, then killing it is justified. 

fo>In short, if you sincerely want to balance the rights of one person against 
fo>the rights of another person, you won't leave the decision to one of the 
fo>parties involved.   

In the case of abortion conflict we apparently are not leaving it to one
of the partys.  We as society have decided that the woman's right to her
body is more compelling.  We leave it to her to decide on her own if there
is a conflict between the rights.  

fo>So by all means defend a woman's right to choose, but not in
fo>the same breath as the "fetus' right to life".

I'll supply a little analogy I'd like to use here.  I personally believe
ants have a right to life.  I also believe myself and my family have a 
right to good health.  Rarely do the ants right to life and my familys
right to health come in conflict.  However, on occasion, the ants have
come into my kitchen.  Now they are threatening my and my familys health.  
Despite the fact I believe they have a right to life, I will kill them
because now they are conflicting with my familys health.  I may feel
bad about killing them.  I'd personally rather I didn't have to do it.
But I need to resolve the contention between our conflicting rights.

fo>Frank O'Dwyer		       			Disclaimer: 

Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion