From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Subject: Re: A question for Welch and any prolifer
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1992 19:08:12 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.021949.12784@ncsu.edu> dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>> I "missed" the point insofar as you are defining rights to be allowable
>> on the basis of inactivity, sure.  
>I am not defining rights on the basis of inactivity -- you can  
>actively exercise your rights so long as you do not interfere 
>with the rights of others. 

Yeah, right.

In fact, if someone else is already impinging upon me, I can legally and
morally stop that infringement even up to the point of lethal force if 
necessary.

Which kinda sort interferes with their 'rights' don't it?

>In many situations, you have the right to do nothing. Under most  
>circumstances, a person has the right to refuse to save the life 
>of another human. But that does not imply that they have the 
>right to kill another human. 

Sort of depends upon what the 'other human' is doing, doesn't it?  If hte
other human is beating them, they may go so far as to kill that other human
in order to stop the beating.  Ditto raping.  Ditto kidnapping.  None of 
which are necessarily LIFE THREATENING, are they?

I suppose you *could* do nothing, too, if you wanted to.  But there isn't
any legal compulsion to suffer at the hands of another human and just take
it.  Seems to me that -- even if we grant feti the arguable status of another
human -- we can make a good case for what it is doing to the pregnant woman.

>Yes, however I am not saying that a person cannot act on their rights. 
>I am saying that they cannot act if they were to violate the rights of 
>others.

In the pregnancy debate, which "rights" of "others" do you refer to?  Or are
you only discussing it wrt the analogy of forced medical treatment?

>> Bull.  If the mother takes no action, the fetus will not be expelled,
>> and will probably reabsorb or will cause internal infection to the tune
>> of both of their lives.  

>No, if the mother takes no action against the fetus, then eventually 
>it will be born.

Oh, yeah, the birth fairy will do it in a puff of smoke, eh?  HOW does it
eventually get born, Doug?

>> Doesn't happen very often because the mother
>> DOES take action, i.e., birthin' the baby.  
>
>Birth is an event, not an action taken by the mother. 

Oh an EVENT!  No action in the part of anybody, especially not the mother!
I guess that monitor that showed muscular contraction in MY body was lying,
huh?


>> Which is the culmination 
>> of a whole series of actions.  
>
>The only relevant action I can think of is sexual intercourse.
>(no pun intended)

Then you don't have much initiative, because it only takes a little reading,
and a heck of a lot of it gets posted to this net on a fairly regular basis.

1.  VERY FEW incidences of intercourse result in egg and sperm meeting.
2.  EASILY less than half (and maybe as many as 70%) of fertilized eggs 
do NOT implant.
3.  Within the first trimester there is some significant level of miss-
carriage.
4.  Successful pregnancies require a whole host of requirements from the
female body, all of which go first out to the fetus, and the woman retains
what's left over.

I think your 'activity' filter is useless, Doug.

>> What does mere 'activity' have to do with anything? 
>Murder is a willful action taken against a person. Murder cannot 
>be accomplished through a person's inaction. A father cannot
>murder his child by refusing to support the child. Abortion is 
>a willful action taken against the fetus. Therefore, it fits
>the spirit of murder, if not the legal definition.  

Murder is the legal definition of a certain kind of killing.  Plenty of
other killing exists which is *not* defined as murder.  Abortion is one
of those cases, Doug.  I *think* your NSH personal opinion is showing, 
just a bit here.

>> Insofar as the analogy can cover a situation where a man is ALREADY
>> hooked up to his minor child, the analogy works.   
>
>Not quite. If the father disconnects from the child, his disconnection 
>does not cause the death of the child, the child's disease causes death. 
>The child's death is a consequence of the father's action to disconnect, 
>but the father's action is not a cause of death.  

Horseshit.  If a mother aborts a fetus, her disconnection would not cause
the death -- heck no.  "Lack of viable environment" might be the technical
cause.  So that's OK, huh?

>> Or, "by accident".  Answer the questions.
>
>What type of accident? Give me a realistic scenario.

He came in to give blood for transfusion, or have his kidney tested for
tissue match, but the forms got mixed up.  The doctor was sure he had OKed
the connection, but he changed his mind at the last minute.  Or "Joe" checked
"yes" on the form and "Frank" checked no, but Joe and Frank's name tags got
mixed up.  While under anesthesia for one procedure, the other procedure
(or "event" if you like) occurred.

Answer the questions.

Heck, I'm with rocker on this one.

It's pretty damned EASY to say "Heck yes, hook him up!  A man is just as
responsible for the wellbeing of his child as a woman is!" and, since no 
one is really NUTS enough to make you do it, it's not likely you'd be caught
out in your own dishonesty.  But not one man so far has had the sheer guts
to take such a responsibility for his child.

Mind, I wouldn't, as a woman who HAS brought life into this planet, mandate
these requirements for women, either.  But that's why I happen to be pro-
choice.  I only notice is the pro-lifers, and male ones to boot, who haven't
the courage to force upon their fellow man what they would happily force 
upon a woman.  Dunno what Suzanne thinks....

"But it's *different*...."  Yeah, right.

Adrienne Regard