From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Bill, admit the point before changing the subject.
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:17:46 GMT

In <1992Jul23.173602.13879@eco.twg.com> chall@eco.twg.com 
   (Charles Don Hall) writes: >
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.

Done.  What else do you want me to do?

>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.

The money I give to the local Crisis Pregnancy Center also helps
improve the quality of life for expectant mothers (and new mothers).

>[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, 

Not true.

>but you see
>nothing wrong with passing laws to force other people to support
>them unwillingly. 

There are times when I'd just as soon not support my three children,
but if Bill Clinton is elected, I could be forced to, right? :-)

>>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.

Abortion wouldn't be the more responsible choice in that scenario?

>>>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.

Really?  When my grandmother died, her will included a provision 
for her assets to be established as a trust for the care of my
aunt (one of her daughters), who suffers from a chronic form of 
schizophrenia.  My other aunt (my father is dead, so she was the
only surviving sibling) was named as caretaker.  Does her role
seem "self-imposed" to you?  It sure didn't to her.

>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. 

It's not quite that simple.  The government will likely take legal
steps to exact payment for the support of the abandoned person. 

>The abortion right is usually expressed as an aspect of the "right 
>to bodily autonomy".

Right to privacy.

>I don't see how recognizing such a right can send us down any
>kind of slippery slope.

I hope you're right.

>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?

Yes, I really can.  That is as abhorrent to me as the bottom of the
right to privacy slope.  Both extremes are scary.  

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion