From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 22:09:26 GMT

aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler) writes ...
>hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>Unless these clinics are forcing unwilling women to have abortions, why does 
>>this really matter?  The bottom line is that it is the woman's decision.  But 
>>just out of curiousity, are all these clinics for-profit organizations?  
>
>It matters because it is a violation of the human rights
>of the fetus to abort him or her without justification.

This appears to be nothing more than an expression of your personal
opinion, and NOT an expression of general or historical concensus.
You are assuming that a fetus even qualifies as being "a human", even
when it does not have many of the attributes people usually assiciate
with humanness.  In order to support that statement, you'll have to
provide some considerably more persuasive arguments.

Aside from which is the point that your statement can quite easily be
turned around to read:
	... it is a violation of the human rights of the mother to
	use her body against her will without justification.
thus nullifying your original assertion.

>>What 
>>responsibilities do you think fetuses have?
>
>A fetus would have responsibilities in keeping 
>with his or her rather minimal physical development:
>to develop to the stage where birth is possible
>while keeping the demands upon the mother to sustain 
>himself or herself within her capacity to provide them.

So the mother has no rights other than as a brood mare?  As long as
the use of her body doesn't kill her, anything is justified?

>The mother has the responsibility to provide
>for the fetus whenever she has the capacity
>to do so -- except when she did not consent
>to sexual relations to conceive the child or
>did not comprehend the consequences of her
>actions.

Apparently so.

Where did this responsibility come from?  And why don't you hold
yourself to a similar standard?  And what does consent to sexual
relations have to do with anything?  Are you saying, in effect, that a
woman who actually had sex willingly should be forced to suffer for
her fall from grace?

>Even when the fetus exceeds the mother's capability
>to provide, abortion may or may not be the appropriate
>remedy.

In other words, it is sometimes better to let the mother die rather
than let her get the abortion that would save her life.

>>Do you feel that women in general have an obligation to carry pregnancies to 
>>term?  If so, why?
>
>Parents have an obligation to their children.

Only partly correct.  A parent has an obligation to any children AS
LONG AS THAT PARENT ACCEPTS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF CARING FOR THOSE
CHILDREN.  A parent may end the relationship by adopting out the
children at pretty much any time, at which point any obligation
ceases.  Abortions are similar.

>A pregnant woman is already a parent.
>Since no one other than the pregnant woman can
>provide for her child at this stage of his or
>her life, whatever obligations exist are
>conferred to her.

Until she decides to end her obligations.

>She accepted this responsibility when she 
>consented to sexual relations -- unless she
>did not comprehend the consequences of her actions.

Wrong.  Although you may wish to believe this fantasy, it has no basis
in reality.  Many people quite clearly deny this responsibility by
using contraceptives and getting abortions.  To use "responsibility"
as a means of punishing people is to pervert the whole notion of being
responsible.

>Her right to remove the fetus must be evaluated
>against her child's right to continue its
>existence.

The right of the fetus to use the mother's body must be evaluated
against the mother's right to control her own body.

>  The normal bodily changes experienced
>during a pregnancy or the expected cost of raising
>a child do not qualify as sufficient cause for 
>expelling a fetus because this is what occurs
>naturally in a process the woman freely initiated.

Naturally, yes.  Commonly, no.

Since death is a natural result of travelling at 110kph in a car, am I
justified in killing you because you have done so?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion