From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Re: Bill, admit the point before changing the subject.
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 17:36:02 GMT

In <1992Jul21.210304.27689@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:

>In <1992Jul15.142259.29343@eco.twg.com> chall@eco.twg.com 
>   (Charles Don Hall) writes: >>
>In <1992Jul14.203938.23287@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
>   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >

[RE: Reducing the demand for abortions with paid maternity leave and
subsidized day-care programs and the like.]

>>You're "willing" to pay? Who's stopping you?

>I thought we were talking about federal (or state) subsidies for
>such programs.  Are you willing to pay?

Well, I was talking about programs in general, whether the 
government pays for them or not. If fetuses are really valuable
to you, then you should be willing to subsidize needy pregnant
women out of your discretionary income.

To me, the quality of life is more important than the quantity.
When I donate money to charity, I look for organizations that
will improve the quality of life of the already-born.

[RE: What is the value of a fetus?]
>>Well, why doesn't her valuation matter? 

>If the fetus has no intrinsic value, then her valuation is all that
>matters.  I simply think otherwise.

Again, I have to ask: What are they worth to you? It looks like you
don't value fetuses enough to support them yourself, but you see
nothing wrong with passing laws to force other people to support
them unwillingly. 

>On the one hand, you're saying that fetuses merit no consideration
>beyond the relative value placed on them by women, and on the other
>you've decided that unwanted pregnancies are de facto terrible burdens.
>I thought women were the best judge of such things...?

When I said "unwanted", I meant it in the sense of "that which is not
wanted". If a woman wants to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, then
I'm certainly not going to get involved.

>>Maybe they should judge every pregnancy, and if
>>the woman is risking death or chronic psychosis, then she should
>>be FORCED to get an abortion. I mean, we don't allow people to
>>commit suicide based on their personal valuation of their own lives.
>>
>>Or, the population could get too large, and the state could decide
>>that it has a "compelling interest" in cutting the birth rate. In 
>>this case, we would say that a woman can't arbitrarily CONTINUE a
>>pregnancy on the basis of her personal valuation of the fetus.

>Slippery slope time?  Perhaps then we should be equally concerned
>that the arbitrary termination of fetal life will soon be extended
>to comatose adults -- wait, it already has been.  Well, how about
>handicapped newborns or the senile elderly.  They often represent
>"terrible physical and psychological burdens" to those who must
>care for them.  Why should the caretakers of such people be forced
>to endure this hardship when their pregnant counterparts can simply
>abort?  

No, you don't get it. The burden on these caretakers is self-imposed.
If they don't want to care for their charges, then can turn them over
to the government. In the US, the 14th Amendment (prohibiting 
involuntary servitude) guarantees this right. The abortion right
is usually expressed as an aspect of the "right to bodily autonomy".
I don't see how recognizing such a right can send us down any
kind of slippery slope.

On the other hand, you seem to believe that it is permissible for
the contents of a woman's womb to be declared "property of the state",
and therefore that no absolute right to bodily autonomy can exist. 
Can you see what a dangerous precedent this can set?

>Bill

-- 

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
===========================================================
Newsgroups: talk.abortion