From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 01:26:14 GMT

Martin writes:
>Brian writes:
>>There are two weaknesses to your argument.
>>
>>One is that your 'right' to life can be waived by other people.
>>Otherwise, how could we ever justify executing a criminal?  And how
>>could we go to war and give guns to our infantry if we felt that every
>>person's right to life overrides every other right we have?
>
>Surely, the unborn person is innocent of any charge and deserves the right
>to life.

The fetus (not a 'person' yet) is as guilty or innocent as a rock is,
or as your appendix is.  Innocence has no relevance in this
discussion.  My comment was made in response to your claim that the
"right to life" is inalienable.  It's not.

>>The other is that you're completely neglecting to consider the woman
>>involved.  I've posted a list of some situations in which I feel a
>>woman would have a very good reason not to have a child she doesn't
>>want (she was raped,
>
>A rose is a rose is a rose regardless of how the rose was planted.

A pregnant victim of rape might not agree with you.  She might think
that by forcing her to continue her pregnancy, you're letting the
rapist prolong his crime for nine months.  This smacks of slavery, or
of at least considering women to be 'second-class'.

>> or she needs to take medication that could
>>severely damage the fetus, 
>
>If the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child are weighed 
>properly, then there is a possibility that the life of the mother may 
>take precedence.  However, it's a tough call, but I'd much rather not see
>Direct Abortion.

What if she needs medication for a psychological disorder?  She'll
survive the pregnancy well enough without the drug, of course, but
she'll be reduced to a paranoid, schizophrenic mess by the time it's
over, and may need to be restrained to keep her from hurting herself.
Is this not good enough reason to let her abort?  Not allowing her to
have her necessary medication sure sounds like slavery to me.

>>or she would be required to quit her job
>>and go onto welfare,
>
>More reason to have laws which prohibit abortion.  When employers find
>out that mothers care for their children and have no option to kill them,
>they will shape up.  If not, then we will find ways to make them shape up.

Or else maybe small businesses will hire even fewer women for fear
that they might otherwise be forced to pay maternity leave -- or maybe
they'd hire women who look less likely to be raped -- or so on.
Again, you're being demeaning to women.

And by the way: "having no option to kill their children" does not
necessarily equal "caring for their children."

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh