From: jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker)
Subject: Re: N-C abortion 
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 01:28:22 GMT

In article <724192669snz@keris.demon.co.uk> chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton) writes:
>Yes, *if* the choice is between the existence of the mother or of the
>child, then the mother's existence will take priority _if_she_wishes_
>_it_.  If the mother (voluntarily) said "Save the child at the cost of
>my life", that's her choice.

If the mother has the right to abort because giving birth would cost her
her life, then she has the same right if the costs are lesser.  Being born
is a *privilege* bestowed upon a child by its parents, not a right.  The
mother certainly has the right to continue the pregnancy in spite of the
danger to her own life just as she has the right to continue the pregnancy
in spite of other costs.

>However, the vast majority of abortions are *not* in life-threatening
>situations.  They are because of a consensual act between the mother and
>the father, which in general the parents knew in advance could lead to a
>pregnancy.  When this happens they suddenly decide that they don't want
>to bear the consequences (or perhaps they decided this in advance, which
>would make it premeditated murder).

Choosing to act in a manner which *may* result in some action does not
imply an intent for that action to occur.  Thus, no contract is implied.
Further, with no contract, beginning a process which will benefit somone
else (as live birth arguably would be) can reasonably be terminated at
any time.

>By this (wanting to avoid the consequences of their actions) they are
>declaring themselves not responsible citizens.  By that token, they are
>also declaring their indifference to the rights of others, and thus are
>a potential danger to their neighbours.

The parents have in no way declared themselves irresponsible citizens,
any more than not choosing to give to a particular charity (as it is
a privilege, not a right, for a charity to receive donations).  It may
not be "nice" to not give in some circumstance, but by no means is it
irresponsible citizenship nor indicative of indifference toward people's
rights.

To argue otherwise requires arguments which also legitimize coerced charity,
i.e., welfare.
  
>Now, there is also the case of where the mother did not consent to the
>act which caused the pregnancy (note that in contrast with current laws,
>I do not regard whether she has previously consented to similar acts to
>be relevant - see below).  This is true (obviously) in the case of rape,
>and may be considered to be true in some cases where the woman does not
>understand the consequences (for instance, mental retardation or severe
>lack of sexual education).  In those cases it *may* be the best thing
>for the mother to abort the pregnancy.

The case of rape fall trivially when birth is viewed as a privilege.  It
requires no special handling.

>I mentioned previous consent there.  The way cases of rape are judged
>(certainly here in Britain, and from what I've heard also in America)
>the usual defence strategy is to dig up all the dirt on the woman that
>they can.  Did she spend a night alone with her boyfriend once?  Was she
>wearing 'provocative' clothing (not too long ago, that could mean
>showing her ankles!)?  If she's actually consented to non-marital sexual
>activity before, that's a definite black mark.
>
>In my opinion, all of these things are irrelevant, and in a just society
>would be grounds for a suit of defamation.  My 'ideal' judgement would
>be solely on the case in point, which is one of assault - and, if a
>pregancy ensues, in my view the woman would have grounds for making it
>"assault causing actual bodily harm", and require damages from the
>father for any loss of reputation, job related problems (including
>support for the time that she is unable to work after the child is
>born), medical bills, etc.

This is off the subject, but would you then argue that a defense of the
form "the plaintiff had indicated consent" inadmissible?  If that is the
case, how would one mount a defense when sexual activity had occurred?
  
                                             James Parker
                                             jap@cb1focus.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: chris@keris.demon.co.uk (Chris Croughton)