From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:17:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.192300.18227@sniap.mchp.sni.de> Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de () writes:
>
>Fair point.  I do not mean 'blame' in the sense of 'punish', but
>in the sense of 'responsible'.   Some people have posted that they
>think abortion is a responsible solution to this.   And they are entitled
>to their opinion.  

I am one of the people who've posted that.  But the entirety of what I posted
is "some women, an they know who they are, find abortion to be a responsible
way of dealing with an unwatned pregnancy".  That isn't a statement of
opinion, but a statement of fact.
>
>However I find it hard to see how any responsibility to the fetus is
>fulfilled when people offer shabby apologies like "it's for its own good", or
>"Silence gives consent".  That you perhaps see only one person where I see
>two, I admit, must make this seem different.   But perhaps you can see my
>concern.

Whoa.  Who said anything about any "responsibility to the fetus"? First there
has to be established that there IS a responsibility to the fetus.  *I* think
that is totaly up to the woman:  if she wants to be pregnant, then I think she
should behave in a manner respecting the growing body within her; if she doesn't
want to be pregnant, then her only responsibilityis her respoisibility to
herself.

I don't know anyone who's said abortion is "for the fetus' own good".  The
only time I've heard anyone imply that "silence gives consent" is when
someone idiotcally proposes that the fetus needs to be asked his/her
opinion about abortion.

>I'm sorry, but it is not an accident.  The couple had sex.  Though they used
>birth control, they knew it doesn't always work.  The risk of pregnancy is
>acknowledged, and accepted by them.  This is not the same thing at all as "we
>want to have a child", I acknowledge, but nevertheless it is real, and
>if you happen to be a fetus, it is rather important.
>

I'm sorry, but it was not an accident.  The man drove a car on the freeway.
Though he drove well and obeyed all traffic laws, he knew things don't
always work.  The risk of a car accident is acknowledged and accepted by
him.  It is not the same thing at all as "I don't want to hit another car",
I acknowledge, but nevertheless it is real, and if you happen to be the perosn
in the hit car, it is rather important.


>If they never heard how babies happen, or sincerely believed that you
>don't get pregnant standing up, or something, then you might have a point.
>

No.  The point is this:
 People are sexual beings
 Sex is pleasureable and desireable.
 Couples should use contraception.
 Contraception doesn't always work.
 Women don't have to be pregnant if they don't want to be.
 Abortion should be available if a woman wants to end her pregnancy.
 Prenatal and childbirth care should be available if a woman wants to continue
  her pregnancy.
 Proper care should be available for after the child is born, too.

		
>And if the parents are not responsible for the zygote, who the hell
>is?   And when do parents acquire responsibility for their kids?  Birth?
>When the responsibility fairy arrives?  When?   Who is responsible until
>then?
>
Why does there have to be a responsibility to the z/e/f if the woman does
not want to be pregnant?

IMO, parents acquire responsibility for their offspring when they consent to
have a baby, or when a new child comes into their lives.  In other words,
if I become pregnant unexpectantly, I beleive that I should behave in a
manner which respects that being if and only if I intend to continue
being pregnant. Also, if I agree to adopt a child, then my responsibility
begins at the moment that I make that agreement.  These are my opinin, not
a law, and certainly not something I'd want to leglislate. Being my opinion,
I don't have the right to force anyone else to believe and act as such.


>Very true.  Nor mine.  But in your view, should a reluctant father be 
>compelled to give blood to his child, if by his own actions he caused that
>child to be in need of a transfusion, and he was the only compatible
>donor?  If you can answer 'no' to that, this is consistent with
>the pro-choice view on abortion.   And if you do answer 'no', is
>it O.K. with you if I choose to say that father is being somewhat selfish?
>
I don't think that anyone should be compelled by law to donate blood, tissues,
body organs, etc if they don't want to do so.  Period.  However, I do think
tht people in general have a resposnsibility toward society to do whatever
they think is right, within the bounds of their personal beliefs, religion,
etc, to help and assist other people.  For instance, I used to donate blood,
because I believed it was my responsibility to do so and it didn't hurt me
in any way, but I don't anymore because I don't weigh anough for the procedure
to be safe for me.  Even if I caused an accident which resulted in my son's
needing blood, I shouldn't be strapped down against my will and made to
donate blood.  Noone should be treated with such disrespect, regardless of
the circumstances.

>
>Listen.  I am not trying to punish women for having sex.  I think
>an unborn child is a person.  Poor me, huh?  You would ask me to
>say that an unborn child is not a person, but I cannot in conscience
>do so.  Believe me, I'd love to, my life would be so very much easier. 
>I can't see why it is you think I want to punish women for having sex,
>but all I can do is say no, I don't want that.  And you can take my
>word at face value, or you can call me a liar, it's up to you.
>

Calm down.  I am not calling you a liar, but can't you see how anyone who
believes that the manner in which conception occurs makes a difference in
the right to kill a fetus can't possibly believe that the fetus deserves
a right to life simply because its a fetus?

Why is the manner of conception so important?  If its a person, it's a person
regardless of what caused conception--consensual or non-consensual sex.
The way I see it, by allowing abortions where non-consensual sex caused
the conception, you are denying women the right to terminate if they
had consensual sex, therby punishing them for having sex.

Let's look at this conversation:
 "Doctor, I want an abortion.  I have several very good reasons."
 "Were you raped?"
 "What?  Why does that matter?"
 "Just answer the question, please."
 "No, I wasn't raped."
 "Are you an incest victim?"
 "Why should that matter?"
 "Just answer the question, please."
 "No, I wasn't."
 "Did you consent with your partner to have sex?"
 "That's none of your business."
 "Just answer the question, please."
 "Yes."
 "Then you can't have an abortion."
 "Why not?"
 "Because you had a say in the matter beforehand.  You consented to sex,
 therefore you consented to being pregnant."
 "That's ridiculous.  I used birth control--two kinds."
 "It doesn't matter. The fetus us a person and you can't kill it if you
 wanted sex."
 "Is it a person if I didn't want sex?"
 "Uh...yes."
 "Then the only reason for denying me an abortion is because I wanted sex."
 "Yep, that's just about it."
 "You are going to make me go through a pregnancy which I don't want,
 experience childbirth which I don't want, raise a child or go through the
 pain of adoption all because I wanted sex?"
 "Yep, that's right."

Sounds like punishment to me.
What does it sound like to you?

>In my view, it's not quite the same when you're that person's father,
>or mother, and you got them into the mess where they needed your blood
>through your own negligence.
>

There are existing laws where a person is punished for causing hurt
through negligence.  To force one person to donate blood, tissues, etc
as a punishment for negligence would be considered by our Constitution
as cruel and unusual punishment.

>>exceptions based on the circumstances surrounding how that fetus got
>>there in the first place is absurd, if it is a legal person.  Why not
>>say that a borned person who results from rape or incest can be killed?
>>If the fetus has the exact same rights as a borned person, and you allow
>>this exception, then you should allow the woman to suffocate that borned
>>rape-resulted infant!
>
>Well the rape-resulted-infant, though you've made quite a good
>crack at dehumanising it by describing it as such, is no longer 
>inside your body.  Didn't that used to be important?
>
Why is it dehumaizing to call an infant whos conception was the result of
rape a rape-resulted-infant?  

What's important is your belief that a fetus is a person AND an infant is
a person.  If they are both persons, then killing one would be exactly the
same as killing another, owuldn't it?  Then why do you say that killing the
fetus-person is okay, while killing the infant-person isn't simply because
the conception was caused by rape.  I dont' get it.  If it makes a difference
that one is born and the other isn't, then they both can't be persons, can
they?  Or is a fetus-person different somehow from an infant-person, legally?

>Is a rape victim responsible for her pregnancy?  No? 
>Then in IMHO, that means her right to bodily autonomy should obtain.
>If it's outside her body then it shouldn't, should it?

Oh, so if she did nothing overt to cause her pregnancy, then she can abort.
If she did something, then she can't.  She has to go through with everything
NOT because the fetus is a person, but because of HER BEHAVIOUR.  
Is that a correct summation of yur views?

>>However, if you don't think that a fetus is a legal person, and you do
>>have these exceptions for rape and incest because the women didn't _choose_
>>to be raped or a victim of incest, then you most certainly are implying
>>very strongly that because she _chose_ to have sex, then she cannot
>>terminate.  You are punishing her for having sex!
>
> I do think the fetus is a legal person, or should be, so this isn't me.

Excuse me, a typo there.  What I meant to say was this:
 However, if you DO think that a fetus is a legal person, and you do have
these exceptions for rape and incest because the woman didn't _choose_
to be raped or a victim of incest, then you most certainly are implying
very strongly that because she _chose_ to have sex, then she cannot
terminate.  You are punishing her for having sex.
>
>I have accepted the terms of your logic, and tried my best to show 
>you that I do not want to punish women for having sex.

But, you allow abortion for women who don't chose to have sex, but not
for women who do choose.  It sounds to me like your only criteria for
allwing abortions is the woman's bahaviour, not the personhood of the
fetus.  In fact, that doesn't enter into the picture at all.

The way I see it is this:
 If you believe that the fetus is a person and there is no difference between
a fetus-person and an infant-person, then you can't possibly allow abortions
based on how the conception occurred.  To do so would imply that non-consensual
fetus-persons aren't the same as consensual fetus-persons.  What is the 
difference?
 However, if you do allow abortions in some cases, then the fetus isn't a
legal person at all, so why do you allow abortions in only some cases?  Why
not let the woman decide, after all, she's the one most qualified to make
these decisions.

>
>You know, it would save a lot of bandwidth, a lot of keyboards, and a 
>lot of my time, if people like you could just take somebody's word about 
>what it is they "want" to do.  I want to afford a fetus the dignity and 
>respect that should be afforded any human being.  _That_ is what I want to 
>do, O.K.?

Do you want to legislate what you "want"?
Why do you think that non-consensual sex has anything to do with the "dignity
and respect" of a fetus?

I just want you to take a good look at what your're saying and try to
reason out just what it is.  I've tried to point out some things which
are highly illogical to me and that I can't resolve without your help.

Jennifer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion