From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and abortion (was Re: Speciesism)
Date: 18 Dec 92 11:32:55 CST

In article <TODD.92Dec18115750@ai07.elcom.nitech.ac.jp> todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec16.163347.16101@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>
>>>[serious part]
>>>Of course, pregnant women have rights, I really respect that, but
>>>so do the unborn.  
>>
>>Not legally, (at least in this country) and for good 
>>reason.  If the unborn are given rights, it would be 
>>at the expense of taking away rights from adult women.  
>>Do you really think it's fair for pregnant women to have
>>fewer rights than all other born humans? 
>
>This is like saying my right to drive all over the road
>shouldn't be taken away just because I might wipe out a
>few bystanders.   Crazy drivers deserve more rights.
>
HOW is it like that, Todd?  Your feeble attempt at 
analogy makes no sense to me.

>>BTW, the phrase 
>>'really respect..', when applied to women, and _especially_ 
>>when followed by the word 'but', is on my official Mother's 
>>List of Key Phrases for Determining Which Men to Avoid.
>
>Too bad your mother didn't abort you.
>
Actually, you have a point.  I have stated publically
on this forum that I would gladly give my life if I
could undo the damage that my birth did to my mother's
body.  She's had three major surgeries, and many years 
of pain.  The damage was not forseeable, BTW.

>>>Real justice would reflect a balance of both 
>>>individuals' rights. Abortion is about as one-sided as it gets.
>>
>>In what sense can a fetus be called an 'individual'?
>>Can this 'individuality' be ascertained without doing
>>something invasive to the body of a pregnant woman?
>
>Therefore the fetus should be put to death.  Get in my way? --> Die.
>Good sense of justice there.
>
Idiot alert.  How can you refer to 'individual rights'
of an entity that does not posess individuality as one
of its attributes?  And I have never said that I think
all fetuses should be aborted.  I think women should
have a choice.  Great Nature aborts about 66% of all
concepta before birth.  Why should the wishes of women
be considered inferior to random natural processes?

>>>Adoption would be a pretty good balance, don't you think?
>>>
>>Adoption is fine if that's the option the woman chooses.
>>However, carrying a pregnancy to term may damage her health 
>>and interfere with her education or her employment, thus
>>reducing her earning potential.  Would you like to have 
>>that sort of thing forced on you?  If you 'really respect' 
>>the rights of a woman to have some say about how her body is 
>>used, and you think a woman should have the same right to 
>>protect her health and lifestyle that all other adults enjoy,
>>you will have to accept the unfortunate consequence that
>>'fetal rights' are not compatible with these values.
>
>Of course woman has rights over her own body to some extent.
>She has a right to not have sex.  

Not always, in the real world.  Many women experience a great
deal of interference with this right.  Of course, in
HappyBunyLand (tm), where you hail from, I'm sure things 
are very different.

Even if the woman (God forbid!) _wants_ to have sex, why
does this abridge her future rights?  By this logic, women
could only say 'no' to a man if they've never said 'yes'
to him.  Consent to physical occupation implies consent
to future occupation?  Hmmm?

>                                 She has a right to use any
>of various contraceptives.  You attribute absolutely zero
>rights to the fetus.  What about it's rights?  Your selfishness
>shines stupendously.

A very thoughtful person once asked, 'What's in it for you?'
as a generic question to the group about taking a stand
one way or another on abortion rights.  My reply:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don't have much personal stake in the issue because I had a tubal
ligation five years ago.  However, I still feel that my gender has
some distance to travel in gaining equal status in any modern society,
and I think anti-abortion legislation would be contrary to that
purpose.

On a more immediate, personal level, I came of age a few years before
RvW, and it would please me very much if I might never again stay
awake all night worrying whether someone I care about will die from a
self-induced abortion.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


If you award rights to a fetus, you remove rights from
pregnant women that all other born persons enjoy.  I 
am now obligated to ask you a couple more questions:

1. Since you think pregnancy is a fair consequence for a
woman who has consensual sex, how do you feel about legal
abortion for victims of rape?

2. (this is rocker's question, but she's busy these days)
What equivalent PHYSICAL responsibility do you propose for
a male who has consensual sex resulting in pregnancy
for his partner?

muriel
standard disclaimer

Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada