From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Must Pro-Life Be Inconsistent and Misogynistic? (was Re: Observations)
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 20:04:57 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: usa

Note followup group.

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes ...
>In article <x4rnxb=.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes ...
>>>Perhaps they think that the added burden of living with the fact
>>>that the child was a result of a degrading and violent experience
>>>would be an extremly cruel circumstance, and they are willing to
>>>defer to the well-being of the mother.
>>
>>Ah, so then, if your death would prevent me from suffering equally
>>cruel circumstances, then it would be alright for me to kill you?
>>
>>And if the answer is no, is it because you're a person and a fetus isn't?
>
>First, nothing was said about a right to kill.  "Merely" to remove the
>fetus intact would suffice.  Its right to support would be overridden
>under certain circumstances, not its right to life.  It would pursue
>life as best it could, which wouldn't be very well.

So then, the fetus _isn't_ a person.  I know of no other case where 
killing a person is allowed because of an action somebody else did.

The difference between your view and mine is that I think the mother
should decide whether to continue the pregnancy, and you think you 
should decide.

Daddy knows best?

>>> In other words, to ban abortion
>>>after rape/incest could be regarded as punishment (hence misogynistic),
>>>whereas banning it after consensual sex would merely be enforcing a 
>>>responsibility he and she voluntarily risked (hence not misogynistic).
>>
>>And we hear the tired old responsibility line again.  It didn't fly
>>the first time I heard it, and it doesn't fly now.  When you accept 
>>all the possible consequences of your actions, then I'll take you more
>>seriously.  As long as you expect hospitals to fix you up should you
>>get in a car accident, I'll continue to regard you as being hypocritical.
>
>I pay insurance, so I demand hospital service.  I accept the consequences

So you get to pay for hospital care to fix you after you get in a car
accident, but women don't get to pay for an abortion?

>of sex with women, and I reject unequal treatment under the law.

So then, if she dies during pregnancy then you die?

>>>. the "burden" a woman (or man) has is not a punishment but a natural 
>>>  consequence of the risk in sex (hence no right that overcomes fetal rights); 
>>But you get to avoid the natural consequences of travelling in car at 60mph.
>
>I missed this one.  Explain.

A forseeable consequence of traveling in a car is getting in an accident.
A forseeable consequence of having sex is getting pregnant.
In case of an accident, people have the right to pay for medical care.
In case of pregnancy, people shouldn't have the right to pay for an abortion?

>>>. the extra burden from rape/incest would, however, amount to punishment
>>>  (creating a conflict of rights -- so fetal rights are overridden).
>>
>>But no conflict of rights exists or punishment occurs if the women 
>>consented to sex (but not pregnancy) and faces being disabled should
>>the pregnancy continues.
>
>Here comes your fascination again.  If you like, do a grep and add "/health"
>where you like.  I don't see a +necessary+ contradiction in assuming
>a fetus is a person, claiming it has a right to life, and measuring
>relative strengths of contradictory rights in various circumstances,
>just as we do with all people.

As I said above, you apparently think that you are qualified to balance
the rights of the fetus against those of the mother.  I don't, generally.
I think the mother is best qualified to make that decision.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion