From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Three pretentious pseudo-intellectuals lock horns
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 12:28:25 GMT

In article <=-+pszg.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><BvAL73.8q3@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>><lz#pt#_.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>><Bv4xnr.Czw@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>>                              I suggest that it is a *consistent*
>>>>point of view to consider voluntary sex to create a legal obligation
>>>>to carry a pregnancy to term; no need for "punishment."  
>>>
>>>Yeah, you'll never have to worry about being pregnant so it's easy for you
>>>to determine what's punishment and what isn't.
>>
>>It is most certainly not easy for me to determine what is punishment
>>and what isn't.  Let me also point out that you are equally unlikely
>>to become pregnant.
>
>Obviously.  That is why I would like to leave to the decision of those
>individuals who *are* likely to become pregnant and those that, in fact,
>*do* become pregnant.

I haven't argued against you on this point.  That's your belief
and I have no problem with your believing that.


>>>>                                                         However,
>>>>to force someone to recall a violent victimization can be regarded
>>>>as "punishment" (or as a factor that tips the balance of rights).
>>>
>>>With this statement it appears that you don't care about the fetus at all.
>>>You just seem to care that the woman be forced to follow through on her
>>>"commitment".  Am I reading you correctly?
>>
>>No, you are not.  You are taking black-and-white measurements of
>>an issue that is not black and white.  How does it imply that someone
>>doesn't care about the fetus, if one says that the woman's rights
>>exceed fetal rights in some (or even all) circumstances?
>
>OK.  I think you are reading a "tone of voice" into my post that isn't
>there.  Let me restate what I see inferred by your statements.
>
>If a women is raped (non-consensual sex) and becomes pregnant then 
>she may terminate the fetus if she so desires because she made no 
>"commitment".
>
>If a woman consents to sex and becomes pregnant (for whatever reason) then
>she may not terminate the fetus because she has made a "commitment" by
>willingly particpating in sex.
>
>Fair enough?

Yes, this is more or less implied (the voluntary case is not absolute).

>Now then, if "care of the fetus" is important then it seems to follow that
>no matter how it "came to be" it must not be terminated.

Here is the step to black-and-white.  I don't see how "importance"
implies "all-importance."

>  But, if you are
>only concerned with "commitment" then you allow the fetus to be killed if
>no "commitment" was made.

While this is true, it does not imply the converse, that allowing 
the fetus to be killed means you are only concerned with commitment.


>Of course, there is no evidence of a "commitment" in willing sex.
>Personally, I prefer my partner to be willing - the more willing the
>better.
>
>>Before you ONCE AGAIN attribute these beliefs to me, let me repeat
>>that I am arguing that they are consistent, not whether they should
>>form the basis for law.  Having said that again:
>>
>>It is consistent to take the premise that a woman has voluntarily
>>undertaken a "commitment" to the fetus, when she voluntarily participated
>>in sex.  Thus it is consistent to enforce such a commitment.
>
>I fail to see any commitment in a woman's birth control failing.  And if
>we were to take your "consistency" concept to other areas...

As I've argued elsewhere, I don't see any inconsistency in a belief
that using a contraceptive with full knowledge of nonnegligible risk
implies acceptance of obligation.  Especially if the law makes it
very clear.


>It is consistent to take the premise that a person has voluntarily
>waived any right to legal defense, when they voluntarily participated
>in driving a car.  Therefore, if you are involved in an accident you are
>automatically *guilty* by the fact that you willingly drove knowing 
>the risks.

I have a feeling that if your brakes fail and you drive into my house, 
then you are obliged to pay for the damages, even though you didn't 
intend to have an accident.  You are liable for the unintentional 
consequences of your actions.  In any case, a woman would not have
to meet her "obligations" because she is "guilty" of something.  She would
only be guilty if she had an abortion (ie. avoided the obligations
themselves) and failed to overcome the presumption that the obligation 
was voluntarily assumed.

As far as your car example is concerned, in many states it does
seem to be accepted legal principle that you have automatically 
consented to taking alcohol-detection tests on demand, by virtue of 
your having applied for a driver's license.  See misc.legal for a
discussion of this.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:38674 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4630 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5945