From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Three pretentious pseudo-intellectuals lock horns
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 06:25:40 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: usa

<BvAL73.8q3@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
><lz#pt#_.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>><Bv4xnr.Czw@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>                              I suggest that it is a *consistent*
>>>point of view to consider voluntary sex to create a legal obligation
>>>to carry a pregnancy to term; no need for "punishment."  
>>
>>Yeah, you'll never have to worry about being pregnant so it's easy for you
>>to determine what's punishment and what isn't.
>
>It is most certainly not easy for me to determine what is punishment
>and what isn't.  Let me also point out that you are equally unlikely
>to become pregnant.

Obviously.  That is why I would like to leave to the decision of those
individuals who *are* likely to become pregnant and those that, in fact,
*do* become pregnant.

>>>                                                         However,
>>>to force someone to recall a violent victimization can be regarded
>>>as "punishment" (or as a factor that tips the balance of rights).
>>
>>With this statement it appears that you don't care about the fetus at all.
>>You just seem to care that the woman be forced to follow through on her
>>"commitment".  Am I reading you correctly?
>
>No, you are not.  You are taking black-and-white measurements of
>an issue that is not black and white.  How does it imply that someone
>doesn't care about the fetus, if one says that the woman's rights
>exceed fetal rights in some (or even all) circumstances?

OK.  I think you are reading a "tone of voice" into my post that isn't
there.  Let me restate what I see inferred by your statements.

If a women is raped (non-consensual sex) and becomes pregnant then 
she may terminate the fetus if she so desires because she made no 
"commitment".

If a woman consents to sex and becomes pregnant (for whatever reason) then
she may not terminate the fetus because she has made a "commitment" by
willingly particpating in sex.

Fair enough?

Now then, if "care of the fetus" is important then it seems to follow that
no matter how it "came to be" it must not be terminated.  But, if you are
only concerned with "commitment" then you allow the fetus to be killed if
no "commitment" was made.

Of course, there is no evidence of a "commitment" in willing sex.
Personally, I prefer my partner to be willing - the more willing the
better.

>Before you ONCE AGAIN attribute these beliefs to me, let me repeat
>that I am arguing that they are consistent, not whether they should
>form the basis for law.  Having said that again:
>
>It is consistent to take the premise that a woman has voluntarily
>undertaken a "commitment" to the fetus, when she voluntarily participated
>in sex.  Thus it is consistent to enforce such a commitment.

I fail to see any commitment in a woman's birth control failing.  And if
we were to take your "consistency" concept to other areas...

It is consistent to take the premise that a person has voluntarily
waived any right to legal defense, when they voluntarily participated
in driving a car.  Therefore, if you are involved in an accident you are
automatically *guilty* by the fact that you willingly drove knowing 
the risks.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
Beth and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion