From: tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:55:26 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana

In article <ohgc6so@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>
>In article <BsxsG4.MuG@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu writes:
>|Sorry Adrienne but again this is simple.  If one believes that
>|the fetus is a human being then the issue is clear.  The right
>|to life takes precedence over other rights.  It isn't that the
>|woman does not have rights it is that they are subservient to
>|the right to life of the fetus.
>
>Keep spelling it out for us.  How would you resolve the various
>conflicts of rights which can result in a pregnancy?  Does this
>belief of yours mean that:
>
Again I am not making a case for or agains abortion. I am speaking to
the logical outcome of each argument depending on whether or not one
accepts the fetus as a human being.  Your points below assume that we
are talking about case one where the fetus IS assumed to be a human
being.  I will answer based on that assumption.  Please note that my
answers would be quite different given a different assumption.  And I
summarize those quickly (because they are easy to summarize) later.

>  - The fetus takes precedence over the woman's financial needs?
>    (no abortion in cases where the woman can't afford to support
>     a child, would lose job, etc.)

Absolutely.  Financial needs are subservient to the right to life.
I could go into a long discourse on this but I doubt that it is
necessary given the intellectual level of those involved in the
discussion.

>  - The fetus takes precedence over the woman's mental wellbeing?
>    (no abortion in cases where the stress of continued pregnancy
>    would impair the mental health of the woman)

This would depend on what you mean by mental health.  Short term,
reversible discomfort - absolutely the right to life would take
precedence.  Long term irreversible mental disorder -- absolutely not.
The mother's right to life would take precedence.  

>  - The fetus takes precedence over the woman's health?
>    (no abortion in cases of danger to woman's health)

Depends on the danger - you would have to be more specific.  Danger
implies risk.  This is a two fold point.  The probability of the event
occuring and the severity of the event.   

>  - The fetus's right to life takes precedence over the woman's
>    right to life?  (no abortion in cases of danger to the
>    woman's life)
>

The right of the mother to her life takes precedence as it has in many
states for many years.  My mother was legally allowed to have an abortion when
she was carrying me due to her Multiple Sclerosis.  She decided to
accept the risk and carry me to term.  Thanks, Mom.  That was in 1951.

>I want to make sure I understand what you mean by "take
>precedence".

Perhaps this has made the position more clear.  You'll notice that the
conflicts increase as you move up the scale.  I assume that you intended
as much.  It is a nice logical touch.

You might notice that I didn't say that the fetus's right to life takes
precedence over other rights.  I simply said the right to life takes
precedence.  As you move up (down) your scale the rights collide.  (Your
second level is itself a scale as I implied.)  I think your scale
could have have started much further down (up) with a statement like:
- the mother just doesn't want the fetus.  But than again you probably
knew that that answer was easy and didn't want to waste our time.  Thanks.

Surely there are grey areas (else why a scale) but the logic behind the
position is easily seen.

If the assumption is made that the fetus is not a human being then there
are no grey areas because only humans can have rights (I don't want to
get into an animal rights debate).  Then in each case the answer is that
rights of the mother are the only rights.

Tim
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame