From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: ATUI: The Liberal Position, and Why it is Morally Incorrect
Date: 16 Nov 1992 19:16:55 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
NNTP-Posting-Host: d012s658.ap.mchp.sni.de

In article <BxqA3H.J4y@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>
>>The Liberal Position, and Why it is Morally Incorrect
>
>>     The liberal, or pro-choice position may be described as one that 
>>allows abortion to be performed if the potential mother desires it.
>>Although many pro-choicers will say this is the unconditional right
>>of the woman to control her body, it does not necesarily mean they
>>approve of abortion as a primary means of birth control.  The pro-choicer
>>will often strive for abortion-on-demand practices so the woman has
>>no constraints in the manner she wishes to govern her body.
>
>Others of us accept as a given that a woman has the right to control her body
>so long as she does not violate the rights of another person, and save our
>efforts for showing the real reason that abortion is not wrong:  a fetus is
>*not* a person and thus has no "rights".

Once you accept your 'given' above, the personhood of a foetus is irrelevant.
A woman may have an abortion for the fact that the foetus is in her body.

By the way, a born foetus _is_ a person and _does_ have rights (I assume you
are referring to legal rights, and not what is and is not moral).  This is a
problem at some point after viability, and also makes nonsense of your
assertion that an unborn foetus of the same age is not a person, in any
sense other than the legal sense.

>The FACT is adult humans (not to mention teenagers, etc) *do* have sex, don't
>always use birth-control, and still *most of the time* don't get pregnant.
>(Even without using birth-control, pregnancy doesn't occur very often.)
>Thus adult humans (not to mention teenagers, etc) *will* have sex and do not
>have any reason to expect that it *will* result in a pregnancy.  (Most people
>know that it *can*, but many usually ignore it.)  The philosophy of the
>"extreem" pro-choice is that even consenting to sex and neglecting to use
>birth control does not imply consent to pregnancy.  The woman in that situation
>*still* has the right to chose an abortion.

Well then this philosophy is palpable nonsense.  A woman _does_ consent to
pregnancy when she has sex - and a man consents to the possibility of paying
child-support.  What a woman does not necessarily consent to is carrying to
term.

>Exactly.  Either something has them, or it doesn't.  Since the fetus (which
>is not really a person) does not have an equal right (M.A.Warren's belief,
>which I happen to agree with, and you don't effectively refute), it--in fact--
>has *no* rights.  I've stated this before, but it's important so I'll say it
>again: a "person" does not have the right to be *created*; only once a *person*
>*is* created does it have a right not to be destroyed by another person.  A
>fetus is not a person--even you admit that--and has never been one.

A foetus is morally equivalent to a person for a large number of people.  In
Ireland, even the legal definition partly concurs.  (Of course, in Ireland
they falsely conclude that abortion should therefore be illegal).

>relationship with this child.)  So, even if a newborn is not truly a person,

A newborn _is_ truly a person, you schmuck.

>>     It seems as though the pro-choice movement is more self-serving
>>than it is logical.  I have yet to encounter a morally and logically
>>correct example of justification of most cases of abortion.
>
>Read my response to your "conservative position" post.  Sometimes abortion can
>be the *more* moral thing to do.

Only sometimes?  That's progress.

>>Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
>
>-Rob

-- 
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
                               when you make us free your way"
                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'
                   
Newsgroups: talk.abortion