From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1992 20:40:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep1.180606.12389@advtech.uswest.com>  stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
> In article <78816@ut-emx.uucp> andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard) writes:
>
> >I have thought about this, and thought about this,
>
> So have I.  I used to be pro-abort, in fact, until it was brought forcibly
> home to me that I was being treated like a slave, a non-person.

Really?  I thought you were the guy who wanted to act like a slave-owner,
until it was forcibly brought home to him that he couldn't force someone
else to relinquish control of their body to his wishes.

> >Yes, your genetic material is in there.  So if you donated
> >to a sperm bank, and the woman who was impregnated with your sperm
> >decided to abort her fetus, you would claim the right to block that
> >decision?
>
> Nope.  Because in that case, I would not donate unless I was willing to
> forfeit all rights to the child in advance.  This is common practice
> in most sperm banks, and in fact it goes the other way as well.  The
> woman must agree not to hold the donor responsible for the child.

So extend that logic - don't donate directly unless you're both in
agreement as to what would happen in the case of an unexpected conception.

> >If you can't see this argument, turn it around.  YOU are the one who wants
> >to abort the fetus; your wife (or girlfriend, or whomever) wants to keep
> >the baby.  Whose decision is paramount, and why?
>
> This is the real sticky point.  There are four cases worth discussing:
>
>           Keep               Abort
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Keep     |     Continue     |     Continue*
> Abort     |     Continue*     |     Abort
>
> My *BELIEF* is that Continuing in the * cases is the only politically
> feasible and fair choice.

My *belief* is that giving the person in whose body the fetus would be
growing the tie-breaking vote is the only fair (and politically
feasible) choice.

> Why?  Because the alternative would be
> to require an abortion, or to allow the father to sever all ties
> and obligations to the child.  The first is impossible, because it
> would require the woman to get an abortion she doesn't want,

Why impossible?  I agree that it would be highly objectional, but then
so is forcing the woman to continue the pregnancy against her will.

> the second is politically impossible because it would require women
> to accept sole responsibility for their children, and give up any
> claims to child support.

The second is possible if you allow for legally binding pre-coital
agreements.

> It doesn't, UNLESS it is MY child that is being aborted.  You see, I have
> no real desire to restrict your choices, but the current system leave
> me no choice.  I would much prefer that the constitutional amendment leave
> the morality of an abortion to be a choice, but a choice that the COUPLe
> makes.

Why not make it legal to make that decision *before* engaging in sex?

> Nope.  But we don't force JW's to do so.  When my pregnant SO gets an
> abortion, she IS forcing ME to do something I find unacceptable, to wit,
> allowing my child to be murdered.

But you find it more acceptable for YOU to force HER to do something
SHE finds unacceptable?

> >Then it will never occur, because I will never "admit" that -- I find it
> >an abhorrent position to take, and I cannot possibly see the premises which
> >would allow any reasonable person to take such a view.
>
> I've explained them.  And I find your position to be self serving, unfair
> and very unreasonable.

Funny - that's exactly how I see your position.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion