From: todd@athena.elcom.nitech.ac.jp (Todd Law)
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and abortion (was Re: Speciesism)
Reply-To: todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp
Organization: Nagoya Institute of Technology, Nagoya ,Japan.
	<1992Dec16.163347.16101@hemlock.cray.com>
	<TODD.92Dec18115750@ai07.elcom.nitech.ac.jp>
	<1992Dec18.113255.23932@hemlock.cray.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 06:27:45 GMT


In article <1992Dec18.113255.23932@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:

>>>>[serious part]
>>>>Of course, pregnant women have rights, I really respect that, but
>>>>so do the unborn.  
>>>
>>>Not legally, (at least in this country) and for good 
>>>reason.  If the unborn are given rights, it would be 
>>>at the expense of taking away rights from adult women.  
>>>Do you really think it's fair for pregnant women to have
>>>fewer rights than all other born humans? 

A woman would have to give up some rights to have a baby,
undeniably.  I just happen to believe that a woman's rights
do not extend so far as to kill the fetus.  You give absolutely ZERO
consideration to the fetus.  ZERO.  God, are you selfish.

>>This is like saying my right to drive all over the road
>>shouldn't be taken away just because I might wipe out a
>>few bystanders.   Crazy drivers deserve more rights.
>>
>HOW is it like that, Todd?  Your feeble attempt at 
>analogy makes no sense to me.

It's like this.  We all have to live together. We have to give
and take.  This includes rights.  You give nothing.  You take all.
Get it?

>>>BTW, the phrase 
>>>'really respect..', when applied to women, and _especially_ 
>>>when followed by the word 'but', is on my official Mother's 
>>>List of Key Phrases for Determining Which Men to Avoid.
>>
>>Too bad your mother didn't abort you.
>>
>Actually, you have a point.  I have stated publically
>on this forum that I would gladly give my life if I
>could undo the damage that my birth did to my mother's
>body.  She's had three major surgeries, and many years 
>of pain.  The damage was not forseeable, BTW.

How many times do I have to state that I do not oppose abortion
if the mother's health is in danger.  Can we please stop arguing
about things we agree on?

It is sad that your mother endured so much.  But it is obvious
she loves you, and would not want you to end your life, and
this would be a ridiculous demonstration anyhow.  And as
mentioned, it sounds like a case where abortion might have
been the best solution.  But for a healthy mother, it is a
different situation.

>>>>Real justice would reflect a balance of both 
>>>>individuals' rights. Abortion is about as one-sided as it gets.
>>>
>>>In what sense can a fetus be called an 'individual'?
>>>Can this 'individuality' be ascertained without doing
>>>something invasive to the body of a pregnant woman?
>>
>>Therefore the fetus should be put to death.  Get in my way? --> Die.
>>Good sense of justice there.
>>
>Idiot alert.  How can you refer to 'individual rights'
>of an entity that does not posess individuality as one
>of its attributes?

My whole point is that fetuses are to some extent individuals,
and deserve some rights and protection. Can you prove otherwise?

>And I have never said that I think
>all fetuses should be aborted.  I think women should
>have a choice.  

I think a fetus should have some choice too.  Balance.

>Great Nature aborts about 66% of all
>concepta before birth.  Why should the wishes of women
>be considered inferior to random natural processes?

So if 10,000 people die in random car crashes every year,
and I wish you dead, why should my wishes be considered
inferior?  Your way of thinking would allow me to drive
right over you.

>>>>Adoption would be a pretty good balance, don't you think?
>>>>
>>>Adoption is fine if that's the option the woman chooses.
>>>However, carrying a pregnancy to term may damage her health 
>>>and interfere with her education or her employment, thus
>>>reducing her earning potential.  Would you like to have 
>>>that sort of thing forced on you?  If you 'really respect' 
>>>the rights of a woman to have some say about how her body is 
>>>used, and you think a woman should have the same right to 
>>>protect her health and lifestyle that all other adults enjoy,
>>>you will have to accept the unfortunate consequence that
>>>'fetal rights' are not compatible with these values.
>>
>>Of course woman has rights over her own body to some extent.
>>She has a right to not have sex.  
>
>Not always, in the real world.  Many women experience a great
>deal of interference with this right.  

Yes, they do, and it is tragic.  As I have already stated several
times, I do not oppose abortion for victims of rape.  Once again,
can we please not argue on things we agree on?

>Of course, in
>HappyBunyLand (tm), where you hail from, I'm sure things 
>are very different.

I don't know exactly what prompted this remark, and
I'm not sure of your level of sarcasm here, but let me fill you in
on Japan.  Women are heavily abused here.  One Canadian female friend
(former girlfriend - lawyer) has about 3 assault experiences a week.
The latest, about 2 days ago was where an old man started masturbating
in front of her on the subway.  She usually starts punching them, but
left this old guy alone.

I myself have had over 10 experiences with homosexuals assaulting
me, so I have an idea of what it's like.  Yes, it is not the same
as for women since I am big and strong, but do not lash out for
fear of losing my visa and arrest - I just push them away from me
(and like who's going to believe a male-white foreigner?)  Also,
to be honest, most of the foreign women here are physically bigger
than Japanese men.  Don't think I have no understanding of this
kind of thing.

WRT abortion, Japan has plenty.

>Even if the woman (God forbid!) _wants_ to have sex, why
>does this abridge her future rights?  

Does it abridge her of her future responsibilities?

>By this logic, women
>could only say 'no' to a man if they've never said 'yes'
>to him.  

Honestly don't understand.  Please clarify.

>Consent to physical occupation implies consent
>to future occupation?  Hmmm?

Contraceptives.  Use 'em.

[some stuff deleted]

>If you award rights to a fetus, you remove rights from
>pregnant women that all other born persons enjoy.  

Yes. It's true. Responsibility normally entails diminished
rights.  E.G. Driving a car limits your right to be drink.

>I 
>am now obligated to ask you a couple more questions:

>1. Since you think pregnancy is a fair consequence for a
>woman who has consensual sex, 

Once again, a wide variety of contraceptives are available...

>how do you feel about legal
>abortion for victims of rape?

For the fourth time, I do not oppose abortion for rape victims.

>2. (this is rocker's question, but she's busy these days)
>What equivalent PHYSICAL responsibility do you propose for
>a male who has consensual sex resulting in pregnancy
>for his partner?

How about commitment to the mother and the child, physically
interpreted as participating in child rearing personally, and
doing his utmost to provide properly for the family.  Marriage
is not necessarily requisite.

BTW, I will be gone until about Jan. 5, so cannot continue this
dialogue until that time.

Todd Law
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nagoya Institute of Technology,
Itoh Laboratory,			"Be excellent to each other."
todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada