From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:40:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.012614.11958@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>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.
>

We hold these truths to be self evident...  right to life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness.

The fetus/unborn is definitely a human life.  Why we don't protect human
life (when we can do so in this case) remains a mystery.


>>>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'.

By allowing abortion for just about any reason, our unborn children
become eighth class citizens.  Oops.  Sorry.  I mean non-citizens.  Or
mere parasites or physical extensions to the mother.

>
>>> 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.
>

Yes, there may be "hard cases."  But we also have to remember that over
98% of all abortions performed (from about 1.6 million a year, or so)
are for social reasons.

>>>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.

Nope.  If allowing abortions is the solution to women getting a job, then
we are shifting blame to the women and their children.  However, we 
should not have to even compromise our integrity.  The companies should be
the one at fault for discriminating and not the mother and their children.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion