From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 06:23:23 GMT

In article <aidler.726805188@sanjuan> aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler) writes:
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>>In article <aidler.726560622@sanjuan> aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler) writes:
>>>Any zygote has the *potential* to produce a unique child
>>Any sperm/ovum has the *potential* to produce a unique child.
>>Do you have a point to make?
>
>Once fertilization occurs, the genetic basis for a 
>unique human being is cast.  Before fertilization, the 
>sperm and ovum could combine with any of its
>counterparts so a unique individual does not exist.
>
Which means, in both cases, that it is nothing more then a
*potential*. Why do you feel that a womans body should be subserviant
to a mere potential?

>>>(unless you can prove otherwise -- not in general but for
>>>each one individually).
>>I can *and have* shown that 2/3 or *more* of all completely fail to
>>produce the "unique child" you are so enamoured of. Which makes a
>>child a far cry from the inevitable result you claim it is.
>
>However, until you can determine that a z/e/f at any
>stage in his or her development will not thrive, we
>must give each of them a full opportunity to develop. 
>
Feel free to grow as many of them to term in your own body as you
like. Wht gives you the right to demand that a woman use her body as
you see fit?

>>>Just because the child is not born shouldn't deprive
>>>him or her of all rights.
>>You have yet to provide any reason to believe that a z/e/f is a child.
>
>The z/e/f certainly has the potential to become a child.
>I would not claim that he or she merits the full
>rights of a child because abortion may be the only
>way to provide compasionate relief to the mother.
>However, his or her limited rights could prevail
>against the mother's decision to abort.
Nope, the woman (an undisputed real person) always takes precidence
over the z/e/f (at best, a merely potential person).

>Do you feel the unborn child has no rights or that
>any right he or she could have is always subservient to
>any decision the mother could make?
>
Any theoretical rights of a z/e/f are subservient to the wishes of the
mother wrt carrying the z/e/f within her body.

>>>The fact that he or she is in no position to object to his
>>>or her death does not give the other party total control
>>>of the situation.
>>Certainly it does. It happens all the time. Unless you can produce
>>some rational evidence to show that this is wrong, don't expect
>>anybody to buy your bilge.
>
>Are you saying that the more abortions we have 
>the more "right" they become?
>
I don't think your comprehension is *that* bad...

>>>Even those tried in absentia are entitled to legal 
>>>representation.
>>>
>>This isn't a court case, there are no lawyers invovled (despite the
>>dreams of fetus worshippers). Nor is a fetus considered a legal person
>>in any case. It's existance is dependant upon the willingness and
>>ability of a woman to provide 100% of it's needs. Such needs being
>>taken 100% from her own resources.
>>This gives her all the right she needs to withhold thoswe resources
>>for her own use.
>
>When a woman consents to sexual relations she should
>be prepared to offer those resources at part of the
>biological contract.

Is it really necessary to go through this 6 times a day? Oh well, here
we go again...
consent to sex != consent to pregnancy.
The conception rate for a single sex act is 2-3%.
2/3 or more of all conceptions fail.
This indicates that there is *obviously* more to sex then mere
procreation.
Where can I get a copy of this "biological contract"?

>If an objective medical opinion demonstrates that she
>may not be capable of providing those resources, then 
>she should have the option to abort.
>
Every pregnancy hasa very definite chance of causing serious harm or
death to the woman. Who are you to decide what level of risk is
acceptable for her?

>>Do you support laws which would force the donation of
>>blood/tissue/organs?
>
>I would -- if the situation approximated a pregnancy:
>1.  the recipient must be in urgent need of the donation;
>
Ever known somebody on an organ transplant list who wasn't?

>2.  the donor must be the only person who can supply 
>the need, given current technology (i.e: no volunteers
>or artificial solutions exist);
>
Your volunteer disclaimer is invalid, sicne it does not
"approximate[d] a pregnancy". Not unless you know away for a volunteer
to remove the burden form the pregnant woman.
There are no "artificial solutions" for organ recipients. There are,
at best, dangerous stopgap methods thta can postpone death for a
while.

>3.  the recipient must be a dependent of the donor; and,
>
>4.  the physical and emotional demands on the donor must 
>not be greater than those under which a pregnant woman 
>would have the choice to abort.
Which woman, pray tell? The physical and emotional demands on a
pregnant woman range from minor to fatal.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion