From: aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: University of Victoria
Distribution: na
Date:  7 Jan 93 20:56:39 GMT

bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>>In <markp.725732494@dragonfly.wri.com> markp@dragonfly.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) w

>]>A woman has the right to avoid conception. Once her voluntary actions
>]>have created a human being and placed that human in a position of
>]>dependency, she has obligated herself to act in accord with that human's
>]>right to life.

>I agree that a woman has the right to avoid conception. That is about
>all, however. Now to contend with a whole series of blatant assertions
>you make in a single sentence.

>1.) I would contest that they are "voluntary" actions for any woman.
>    She may have sex, but this does not cause pregnancy, it only enables
>    a situation to develop where conception may occur. (Kind of like
>    you waving your hand, it can be a good-bye wave, a fanning motion,
>    or the slapping of someone in the face.)

People have a responsibility to be accountable
for their actions to the extent of their abilities.
That is a principle worth upholding.

>2.) She has only created the initial stage of a human being, not a human
>    being.

Parents have an obligation to assist their
children to reach their potential.  From conception
they are required to make some attempt to allow
their child to be born.

>3.) In the first stages of conception, there is no dependency. Witness
>    the test tube baby phenomenom.

What difference is there between a zygote in a
test tube or another inside his or her mother
prior to implantation in the uterine wall?
If there are no significant differences, then
logically the parents would be under the same
obligation to children they freely conceive
in a test tube as their "natural" children.

>4.) She has not obligated herself to anything. This is merely your opinion,
>    and is fairly misguided at that.

Refer to #1.

>5.) A z/e/f is most definitely not a human, but a human z/e/f. Human
>    has the connotations of person. Most do not accept the fact that
>    a lump of tissue is a person.

Refer to #2.

>6.) There is no right to life for a z/e/f, or even for a human. If there
>    was, anyone who has ever killed anyone else, whether in war or in
>    retribution, should stand trial as a criminal.

I would agree that the right to life isn't absolute,
but we are under some obligation to preserve a life
when we can.

>Would you care to go over your position again, and come up with a statement
>that doesn't kowtow to emotionalism or morality?

Our differences will always be in the moral
assumptions we make.
I feel justified promoting an independent
adjudication of the rights of the mother versus
those of the unborn child because I am requesting
that society act to protect the rights of the
weakest among us.

>>But in an earlier post, you said abortion was OK for rape or incest since
>>the woman was not pregnant by choice. Assuming she used some method of
>>birth control, she is again not pregnant by choice. Will you please make
>>up your mind.

Where people have been informed of the imperfections
of their method of contraception, then they must be
accountable for the natural consequences of their actions.
Don't contraceptive manufacturers take some measures
to inform users of their products of their expected
pregnancy risks -- if only to minimize child support claims?

Let's suppose that a couple has been informed by a
competent physician that they are infertile.
Then they are not accountable for their pregnancy
because they did not offer informed consent.

>Mark, what is the difference between a z/e/f that was conceived through
>a rape, and one that was conceived through "voluntary" actions? Why
>is it ok to kill one, and not the other? The only rational behind that
>is that it is a punishment for the woman because she consented to sex.
>In the case of incest, it is society's ethics that allow it, not to
>mention that children conceived of immediate relatives has been taboo
>in more societies than I can count, for a much longer time than anyone
>is sure of. Pro-lifers in general attempt to place their own religious
>morals over those of society, and use flawed arguments similar to those
>you've espoused in a general emotional/moral ploy, supported by disin-
>formation like yours, to gain some sort of control over others.

There are no differences in the child regardless of how he
or she was conceived.
However, the mother's parental obligation is only present
when she has freely consented to sexual relations.
As I posted previously, a simple statement would suffice:

"I never consented to sexual relations with this child's
father that could have conceived him/her."  The Mother.

The woman doesn't have to prove rape or identify her abuser
-- only believe that she did not consent to sexual
relations strongly enough to sign that statement.

A IDLER
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:55389 alt.magick:6769 alt.pagan:15286 alt.drugs:20887