From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Questions for Pro-Choice advocates
Date: 10 Jan 93 16:54:48 CST

In article <C0LqFE.1yr@news.cso.uiuc.edu> updike@bug.cat.com (Michael Updike) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.212721.22962@hemlock.cray.com>, mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>|> In article <C0K6zE.1wr@news.cso.uiuc.edu> updike@bug.cat.com (Michael Updike) writes:
>|> >In article <1993Jan8.155810.14110@hemlock.cray.com>, mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
[deletions]
>|> Would you require the woman to await society's decision
>|> while her life was in imminent danger?
>
>No. In most cases time would be sufficient to make a rational determination. In
>an emergency situation the doctor and mother could make this determination.  This
>presupposes that the two would act in a reasonable way.  There would, of course,
>be abuses of this as there are any time human beings make decisions.
>
[more deletions]
>|> I think it's easy to _say_ this, when no rights of your
>|> own are at risk.  But how can women approach economic
>|> parity without reproductive freedom?  Do you not see how
>|> unequal reproductive rights would hamper women in the
>|> workplace?
>
>The reproductive systems of men and women are inherently different and as such
>I don't think equality discussions are valid.  I do support family leave and
>other laws that allow women to bear and raise children while minimizing the effect
>on their economic condition and career advancement.  I also think most men should
>devote more of their time and energy to their children.
>
In other words, you think we should be satisfied with
unequal rights, and take whatever crumbs you BigStrong
AlphaMaleKnowWhatsBestForWomen want to toss our way?

>|> >                                                        Since I believe the
>|> >fetus should have rights, abortion involves more than control over one
>|> >individuals body and therefore the competing rights need to be considered.
>|> >
>|> The fetus is not an individual in a physical sense.
>
>I disagree. The original post asked a question directed to those who don't oppose
>abortion at any time prior to birth.  It also asked about the fundamental differences
>between the fetus/baby before and after birth. I reponded above to a guy who said
>that difference was between the mothers options not the fetus/baby. I submit that
>since there is no fundamental physical difference the rights of the baby
>should extend to the rights of the fetus. 

I have pointed out that the reason for not assigning rights
to fetuses is because doing so would reduce the woman to 
'container' status.  There are some fundamental physical
differences between fetuses and newborns.  Individuality
is only attained at the 'division' that happens at birth.

>The mother and fetus are as much 
>individuals as are siamese twins who share organs and as such require a level
>of cooperation to continue existing.
>
OH.  I thought maybe you were missing this point.
The mother has to lose some of her individuality 
in order to assign anything like individuality or
personhood to the fetus.  Whould you like it if 
someone wanted you to give up your individuality
by force of law?

>|>  When
>|> you can support the fetus without commandeering the physical
>|> resources of another, it may have individual rights.
>|>
>
>The other question in the original post was directed at people who oppose abortion
>at some point before birth and how they justify usurping a womans right to choose
>at that point. No one's taken this side yet although your above comment indicates
>you might consider viability that point. All the arguments I've given so far have
>been directed towards the other camp and have considered competing rights
>since it seems clear to me that a full term fetus is fundamentally the same as a
>newborn.

That's only if you include woman = nothing
among your premises.  The statement you just made
totally ignores her pain and risk, as well as the
use of her resources. Besides, I bet if you met a 
born person with a two-chambered heart, you'd think
there was quite a difference.

>
>If you do oppose abortion at some point before birth I would like to know the
>justification for taking away the right to choose. This would open up a whole new
>discussion of what constitutes a human being or a person and when they aquire
>rights. 
>
I don't favor any legal restrictions on abortion beyond
those that apply to any other minor surgery.  I haven't seen 
any evidence that late term abortions are being performed for
trivial reasons, and I can't imagine what business the state
has in getting involved.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion