From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: The Right to Exist
Date: 9 Apr 92 10:57:37 CDT

In article <1992Apr8.224428.10301@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>In <1992Apr8.114242.6003@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>
>>Warning: DULL!
>
Don't be so hard on yourself, Steve!

[massive deletions.]
The chances of death resulting from pregnancy are greater
then zero, Steve. I don't have the stats handy. Beth, can
you help?

I agree that it can be confusing to quote multiple layers 
of attributions, Steve. But the way you take things out
of context makes your comments irrelevant in many cases.
If you wish to join a conversation in progress, please 
leave enough of the original discussion in place that
your response is not simply a demand for restoration
of that which you have removed.
>
>>The right to determine the uses to which one's body may be put.
>>Includes the right to withhold consent for sexual activity,
>>even from a spouse, the right not to be forced to perform
>>slave labor, and the right to terminate  the attatchment of
>>any other organism, internal or external, that attatches itself
>>to one's body. 
>   where did this come from? Lovely definition. It makes sense up
>until the "organism" part. This is an "organism" you created, therefore
>it is YOUR responsibility... Not to terminate, but to nurture. 

This is your opinion, Steve. The costs of adopting this set
of values (Physical and otherwise) must be paid by someone
other than you. I will never try to force my system of values
on you. But you would do this to women, many of whom might
die if you eliminate their legal options to deal with a crisis
pregnancy in the way they see fit.
>                                                               Every woman
>fully knows and understand what she will create if /when conception
>take place... 
>
You are so...wrong. Many girls/women lack full information,
or the ability to understand such cause/effect principles.
Or do you argue that the term 'woman' does not include
individuals with mental disabilities?

Even a bright, fully informed woman never knows for certain
what she will create. Could be a boy, a girl, or both. Could
be a miscarriage, a stillbirth, or a healthy  set of triplets.
Could be she'll create a health crisis for herself from which 
she'll never recover.

Could be she'll create a dogmatic moral absolutist with no respect 
for women.

>>You really don't address the woman much in this diatribe. A fetus
>>is incapable of judgement, but a woman is not. She should have the 
>   Garbage. The fetus in the first couple of months responds to
>thermal, physical, electrical, nutritional, photo, and chemical
>stimulation. As well, it can easily sense motion, and various studies
>were carried out at one of the Ivy League schools which showed that in
>the 6th month the fetus is capable of reason and logic (deciding between
>two options, it conclusively, with results greater than 90% repeatability,
>could decide in a predictable and logical manner).
>   nice try again though - incapable huh? 

Document this, Steve. Or retract it. Quotations from experts
who would affirm that whatever evidence you're discussing indicates
the ability to make value judgements will be necessary to show
relevance.

muriel
standard disclaimer.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion