From: updike@bug.cat.com (Michael Updike)
Subject: Re: Questions for Pro-Choice advocates
Organization: NA
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 19:35:36 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.212721.22962@hemlock.cray.com>, mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
|> In article <C0K6zE.1wr@news.cso.uiuc.edu> updike@bug.cat.com (Michael Updike) writes:
|> >In article <1993Jan8.155810.14110@hemlock.cray.com>, mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
|> >|> In article <C0Jxtu.L5L@news.cso.uiuc.edu> updike@bug.cat.com (Michael Updike) writes:
|> >|> >
|> >|> >This is where I differ.  If there is no difference between the fetus/baby
|> >|> >I need to consider the rights of the fetus/baby balanced against the rights
|> >|> >of the mother.  It's not a pleasent choice but I think
|> >|> >society has an obligation to consider this when they determine
|> >|> >abortion policy. IMO the fetus/babies life should be the overiding concern
|> >|> >even though this may cause emotional or psychological harm to the mother.
|> >|> >(I guess that sounds cruel but whenever conflicting rights are involved somebody
|> >|> >is hurt.)
|> >|> 
|> >|> What about physical harm, and risks to the mother's
|> >|> life or health?
|> >
|> >If the mothers life is in imminent danger from a pregnency (something society
|> >needs to make judgements about with the input of medical personnel) 
|> >then the results of either decision
|> >is equally destructive. Even though the fetus lacks intent to harm I see no
|> >problem with the mothers life taking priority if she decides. 
|> 
|> Would you require the woman to await society's decision
|> while her life was in imminent danger?

No. In most cases time would be sufficient to make a rational determination. In
an emergency situation the doctor and mother could make this determination.  This
presupposes that the two would act in a reasonable way.  There would, of course,
be abuses of this as there are any time human beings make decisions.

[stuff deleted that I mostly agree with.]

|> >|>  What about placing pregnant women
|> >|> in a category of individuals who have fewer rights
|> >|> to their bodies than all other born persons?  Do you
|> >|> think that women could ever acheive equal status with
|> >|> men in a society where their rights were subject to
|> >|> suspension on the basis of your, or society's, concerns
|> >|> about the fetus?
|> >
|> >I don't think equal status applies between men and women concerning the right
|> >to an abortion since men could never have one.  If they could it should be
|> >treated the same way (which ever way society decides).  
|> 
|> I think it's easy to _say_ this, when no rights of your
|> own are at risk.  But how can women approach economic
|> parity without reproductive freedom?  Do you not see how
|> unequal reproductive rights would hamper women in the
|> workplace?

The reproductive systems of men and women are inherently different and as such
I don't think equality discussions are valid.  I do support family leave and
other laws that allow women to bear and raise children while minimizing the effect
on their economic condition and career advancement.  I also think most men should
devote more of their time and energy to their children.

|> >                                                        Since I believe the
|> >fetus should have rights, abortion involves more than control over one
|> >individuals body and therefore the competing rights need to be considered.
|> >
|> The fetus is not an individual in a physical sense.

I disagree. The original post asked a question directed to those who don't oppose
abortion at any time prior to birth.  It also asked about the fundamental differences
between the fetus/baby before and after birth. I reponded above to a guy who said
that difference was between the mothers options not the fetus/baby. I submit that
since there is no fundamental physical difference the rights of the baby
should extend to the rights of the fetus. 

The mother and fetus are as much 
individuals as are siamese twins who share organs and as such require a level
of cooperation to continue existing.

|>  When
|> you can support the fetus without commandeering the physical
|> resources of another, it may have individual rights.
|>

The other question in the original post was directed at people who oppose abortion
at some point before birth and how they justify usurping a womans right to choose
at that point. No one's taken this side yet although your above comment indicates
you might consider viability that point. All the arguments I've given so far have
been directed towards the other camp and have considered competing rights
since it seems clear to me that a full term fetus is fundamentally the same as a
newborn.

If you do oppose abortion at some point before birth I would like to know the
justification for taking away the right to choose. This would open up a whole new
discussion of what constitutes a human being or a person and when they aquire
rights. 

|> >BTW, I don't want to suspend any rights based on my concerns. All I want to
|> >do is express my concerns and hopefully help to convince society in general
|> >that they have merit. At that point society would potentially make different
|> >decisions about abortion policy.
|> 
|> I hope it doesn't happen.  It would be a step backward.

I respect you opinion but hope to change it.

|> If you would like to decrease the incidence of abortion
|> through better sex education and research into improved
|> contraceptives, I'd be all for it.
 
Agreed. I would also like to reduce it by improving overall education so that
the economic incentives for abortion are reduced.


Mike
Newsgroups: talk.abortion