From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:36:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug31.160659.13328@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
> In article <1992Aug26.001935.2945@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com write
> >stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>
> ># The reasoning seems to be: Agreeing to sexual intercourse implies acceptance
> ># of responsibility for any resulting consequences.  If you do not consent,
> ># then you should not be held accountable for the consequences (rape, incest).
> >
> >So far, you have not tripped yourself up.
> >
> ># Abortion is not considered a responsible choice.
> >
> >*Here* is where you appear to loop back on yourself. You do not give a
> >reason why abortion is `not considered a responsible choice,' and you
> >neglect to qualify it by appending `for ending pregnancies resulting
> >from consensual sex.'
>
> Consider the qualification made.  And I had assumed you would realize that
> the statment is one of beliefs.  After all, this belief, or one very like
> it (abortion is murder, therefore it is an immoral choice) is the basis
> for the pro-life movement.
>
> >Explain why abortion should be considered a reasonable choice for
> >dealing with a pregnancy that results from rape, but not a reasonable
> >choice for dealing with a pregnancy that results from consensual sex,
>
> Sigh. . .  Support ANY of your claims without resorting to a statement
> of beliefs, and you might find a convert in me.
>
> What we have here, is the belief that the child that is the result of
> a rape CONTINUES the violation of the woman's (limited) right to bodily
> autonomy, and that that right supersedes the child's right to live.

Didn't you say above:
> WHAT RIGHT TO BODILY AUTONOMY?

So now we see you saying that there *is* a right to bodily autonomy where
it's convenient for your argument, but not where it's not?

> In the case of aborting a child that is the result of consensual sexual
> intercourse, the woman's bodily autonomy was NOT violated during
> conception, she AGREED to have sex.

True, but an unwanted pregnancy *does* violate her bodily autonomy.

And note that conception can occur many hours after intercourse ends,
so even in the case of rape, it's not a *continuation* of the violation
of the woman's right to bodily autonomy; it's the cessation of the violation
by the rapist and then, later, the start of the violation by the z/e/f.

> It is the belief of some that the
> woman, if she is a mature, adult human being, accepts RESPONSIBILITY
> for the results of her actions (i.e., having sex).

And it is the belief of many that abortion is a way of dealing responsibly
with an unwanted pregnancy.

> Turn it around, offer ANY moral reason for allowing a woman to have an
> abortion after she AGREED to have sex.

Agreement to have sex does not imply agreement to become pregnant.

> It's not nice to use emotional evocation in a debate.  Both sides do it,
> and I have little respect for either.

Why do I smell a hypocrite?

> to others that they never professed.  I've never heard anybody, pro-abort
                                                                  ^^^^^^^^^
> It isn't just the pro-lifers, the pro-aborts are doing the same.
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^
> The pro-aborts tirades about rights make them look as fanatic as the
      ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^

Oh - that's probably why...

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)