From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: 8 Jan 93 14:25:54 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Distribution: na
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler) writes:
>bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

[in response to 1.]
>People have a responsibility to be accountable
>for their actions to the extent of their abilities.
>That is a principle worth upholding.

People are not held responsible for accidents. (They are held responsible
for neglect, however this should not be confused with the accident itself.)
Note: This does not include later suits, only criminal aspects.

I agree that people should be have a responsibility for that which they
do deliberately. Anyone deliberately getting pregnant (now there's one
I'd like to see you prove) probably should not be allowed to get an
abortion for convenience.

>>2.) She has only created the initial stage of a human being, not a human
>>    being.

>Parents have an obligation to assist their
>children to reach their potential.  From conception
>they are required to make some attempt to allow
>their child to be born.

False. There is no requirement, moral or otherwise, for parents to assist
their children in anything, at any age. This is even absurd, in that 
almost all are unaware of conception when it occurs. BTW, if a woman 
has just had sex, then takes the RU-486, is this allright by you, since 
conception has not yet occurred? Or must preperations be made for ensuring 
that the womb is a fit recipient of the unwelcome "little guest"?

Oh, and a last statement, a z/e/f is not a child.

>>3.) In the first stages of conception, there is no dependency. Witness
>>    the test tube baby phenomenom.

>What difference is there between a zygote in a
>test tube or another inside his or her mother
>prior to implantation in the uterine wall?
>If there are no significant differences, then
>logically the parents would be under the same
>obligation to children they freely conceive
>in a test tube as their "natural" children.

The differences are that the test tube z/b was a deliberate creation,
where as the z/b in the uterus is not, as it is more the result of a
game of roullette, and that the z/b in the test tube has no "claim"
on a woman's body, as it might take force to place it there, should
the woman not want it there, whereas the one in the uterus must be 
removed, or it will "force" itself into a dependent state with the woman
as an unwilling host. (For the case in question)

>>4.) She has not obligated herself to anything. This is merely your opinion,
>>    and is fairly misguided at that.

>Refer to #1.

I did. You failed to make a point. You cannot force your personal 
moral/ethical code on others, especially when it interferes with things
like personal freedoms.

>>5.) A z/e/f is most definitely not a human, but a human z/e/f. Human

>Refer to #2.

Again, you failed to make your point. A z/e/f is not a child, no matter
how crucial that is to your argument.

>>6.) There is no right to life for a z/e/f, or even for a human. If there

>I would agree that the right to life isn't absolute,
>but we are under some obligation to preserve a life
>when we can.

Since when? We are under no such obligation, unless we place it upon
ourselves. Note the animal rights activists protesting deer hunting.
These short-sighted people say nature could handle itself before, let
it do so now. This would hold true, had man not come in and upset the
balance severely. So man must take steps to make sure that the environment
doesn't fall apart completely. (Man has some stake in this as well,
since if the environment completely collapses, we might be in trouble
ourselves)

>>Would you care to go over your position again, and come up with a statement
>>that doesn't kowtow to emotionalism or morality?

>Our differences will always be in the moral
>assumptions we make.
>I feel justified promoting an independent
>adjudication of the rights of the mother versus
>those of the unborn child because I am requesting
>that society act to protect the rights of the
>weakest among us.

First you have to prove that "it" is among us. Then you must show why
we should protect it. Then you must show why we should subjugate another
for its survival. Then you must make another case for why a relative
cannot remove a kidney or lung from you because they need it.

>Where people have been informed of the imperfections
>of their method of contraception, then they must be
>accountable for the natural consequences of their actions.

All contraceptions, including vasectomies and tubal ligations, have
a failure rate. The consequences of their actions could therefore be
termed "accidents", and surely you're not advocating we withhold aid
to those having suffered an "accident", are you?

>Don't contraceptive manufacturers take some measures
>to inform users of their products of their expected
>pregnancy risks -- if only to minimize child support claims?

Yeah, there's this nice little pamphlet, oh, about 2" high with small
print on it that, if you read carefully among all the medical gibberish
totally incomprehensible to the average layperson, that there is a failure
rate among conscientious users of about 3 per 100 woman years. I don't
believe it is for their desire to reduce child support claims, either.

>Let's suppose that a couple has been informed by a
>competent physician that they are infertile.
>Then they are not accountable for their pregnancy
>because they did not offer informed consent.

Let's say that you are told by a competent astrophysicist that if you
pick your nose, there is a 0.001% chance that a meteorite will hit your
neighbor's house. You pick your nose. It happens. Should you be held
accountable?

>>Mark, what is the difference between a z/e/f that was conceived through
>>a rape, and one that was conceived through "voluntary" actions? Why
>>is it ok to kill one, and not the other? The only rational behind that
>>is that it is a punishment for the woman because she consented to sex.

>However, the mother's parental obligation is only present
>when she has freely consented to sexual relations.

This still smacks of the punishment theory. Buttering up you wording
doesn't remove the sting, does it.

>The woman doesn't have to prove rape or identify her abuser
>-- only believe that she did not consent to sexual
>relations strongly enough to sign that statement.

So now your willing to say it's all right to have an abortion, as long
as she makes a criminal out of the father? You're one scary person....

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.