From: aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: University of Victoria
Date:  1 Jan 93 10:48:16 GMT

hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>Does the arbitrator have to be the government?  Women rarely make the decision 
>to abort totally on their own.  Physicians and other medical personel are 
>consulted, husband/boyfriends/family members/etc. are also consulted.  
>Religious women may also consult their priest/minister/rabbi.

In our society we expect the government to act
impartially between individuals.
Perhaps a formal arbitration isn't appropriate on
these occasions.
Even a form specifying the cases where the woman's
rights would supercede the child's could prove
workable.  Then it would be the physician's 
responsibility to handle the paperwork.

>>I don't know how abortions are supervised in your
>>area (Virginia?), but here in B.C. there are people
>>who demand community clinics independent of hospitals
>>to provide for "women's health."
>>They would not supervise births or any form of natal
>>care other than abortions.
>>What are these clinics likely to recommend to 
>>a pregnant woman appearing at their door?

>Unless these clinics are forcing unwilling women to have abortions, why does 
>this really matter?  The bottom line is that it is the woman's decision.  But 
>just out of curiousity, are all these clinics for-profit organizations?  

It matters because it is a violation of the human rights
of the fetus to abort him or her without justification.

BTW, medical care for profit doesn't occur in Canada (much).
It doesn't mean there isn't lots of money to be made, however.
These community clinics operate like a doctor's office, 
booking appointments and billing the government for services
at agreed rates.
They appear to be the community health initiative of 
some women's groups.

>>>Do you know of any way to give rights to a fetus without taking away rights 
>>>from the pregnant woman?
>> 
>>The mother, father, and child each have *rights* and 
>>*responsibilities*.

>I'm not sure about Canada, but in the U.S. fetuses do not have rights.  

Canadian fetuses lost their (minimal) legal rights in 1991
(I believe).
However, this is the court of the net where 
all things are possible ...

>What 
>responsibilities do you think fetuses have?

A fetus would have responsibilities in keeping 
with his or her rather minimal physical development:
to develop to the stage where birth is possible
while keeping the demands upon the mother to sustain 
himself or herself within her capacity to provide them.

On the other hand, just in case you were wondering ...

The mother has the responsibility to provide
for the fetus whenever she has the capacity
to do so -- except when she did not consent
to sexual relations to conceive the child or
did not comprehend the consequences of her
actions.

I maintain that some arbitrator is required to resolve 
these 2 (possibly) conflicting responsibilities.
Even when the fetus exceeds the mother's capability
to provide, abortion may or may not be the appropriate
remedy.

>Do you feel that women in general have an obligation to carry pregnancies to 
>term?  If so, why?

Parents have an obligation to their children.
A pregnant woman is already a parent.
Since no one other than the pregnant woman can
provide for her child at this stage of his or
her life, whatever obligations exist are
conferred to her.
She accepted this responsibility when she 
consented to sexual relations -- unless she
did not comprehend the consequences of her actions.

Her right to remove the fetus must be evaluated
against her child's right to continue its
existence.  The normal bodily changes experienced
during a pregnancy or the expected cost of raising
a child do not qualify as sufficient cause for 
expelling a fetus because this is what occurs
naturally in a process the woman freely initiated.

Yes, you may infer that I would object to government
impairing the right of sexually assaulted women
to terminate an undesired pregnancy.
A simple statement that she did not consent to
sexual relations would suffice.

A IDLER
Newsgroups: talk.abortion