From: parker@eehp3 (Robert Scott Parker)
Subject: Re: ATUI: The Liberal Position, and Why it is Morally Incorrect
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:18:11 GMT

frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:

>In article <BxqA3H.J4y@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>>mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
>>
>>>The Liberal Position, and Why it is Morally Incorrect
>>
>>>     The liberal, or pro-choice position may be described as one that 
>>>allows abortion to be performed if the potential mother desires it.
>>>Although many pro-choicers will say this is the unconditional right
>>>of the woman to control her body, it does not necesarily mean they
>>>approve of abortion as a primary means of birth control.  The pro-choicer
>>>will often strive for abortion-on-demand practices so the woman has
>>>no constraints in the manner she wishes to govern her body.
>>
>>Others of us accept as a given that a woman has the right to control her body
>>so long as she does not violate the rights of another person, and save our
>>efforts for showing the real reason that abortion is not wrong:  a fetus is
>>*not* a person and thus has no "rights".

>Once you accept your 'given' above, the personhood of a foetus is irrelevant.
>A woman may have an abortion for the fact that the foetus is in her body.

I don't consider the get-it-out-of-her-body argument to be a good justification
for abortion.  If that were the best reason why abortion should be legal then
the pro-lifers would push very hard for laws that the doctor must try to save
the aborted fetus.  Excuse me, but that is kindof against the point.  It would
be stupid to spend resources trying to "save" something and then dump the
burden back on the mother or on society.

The personity (my term) of a fetus is *very* relevant, since it is "wrong" to
kill a person who exists.

>By the way, a born foetus _is_ a person and _does_ have rights (I assume you
>are referring to legal rights, and not what is and is not moral).  This is a
>problem at some point after viability, and also makes nonsense of your
>assertion that an unborn foetus of the same age is not a person, in any
>sense other than the legal sense.

>>The FACT is adult humans (not to mention teenagers, etc) *do* have sex, don't
>>always use birth-control, and still *most of the time* don't get pregnant.
>>(Even without using birth-control, pregnancy doesn't occur very often.)
>>Thus adult humans (not to mention teenagers, etc) *will* have sex and do not
>>have any reason to expect that it *will* result in a pregnancy.  (Most people
>>know that it *can*, but many usually ignore it.)  The philosophy of the
>>"extreem" pro-choice is that even consenting to sex and neglecting to use
>>birth control does not imply consent to pregnancy.  The woman in that situation
>>*still* has the right to chose an abortion.

>Well then this philosophy is palpable nonsense.  A woman _does_ consent to
>pregnancy when she has sex

That is bull***t.

>                           - and a man consents to the possibility of paying
>child-support.  What a woman does not necessarily consent to is carrying to
>term.

What the hell do you think consenting to pregnancy but not to term means?
Either she wants the pregnancy or she doesn't.  Since pregnancy is not a given
(and is not even that likely) consequence of sex, you can not infer consent to
pregnancy (to term, to use your words for what I see as the same thing) from
consent to have sex.

>>Exactly.  Either something has them, or it doesn't.  Since the fetus (which
>>is not really a person) does not have an equal right (M.A.Warren's belief,
>>which I happen to agree with, and you don't effectively refute), it--in fact--
>>has *no* rights.  I've stated this before, but it's important so I'll say it
>>again: a "person" does not have the right to be *created*; only once a *person*
>>*is* created does it have a right not to be destroyed by another person.  A
>>fetus is not a person--even you admit that--and has never been one.

>A foetus is morally equivalent to a person for a large number of people.  In
>Ireland, even the legal definition partly concurs.  (Of course, in Ireland
>they falsely conclude that abortion should therefore be illegal).

>>relationship with this child.)  So, even if a newborn is not truly a person,

>A newborn _is_ truly a person, you schmuck.

I would normally agree, however for the purposes of the argument I do not make
any *assumptions* about it (which you are).  If you can scientifically *prove*
that a newborn is sentient, then there is no problem, infanticide would be
wrong.  Similarly if someone could scientifically *prove* that a fetus is
sentient after a certain point of development then abortion after that point
(which must be at or after viability at any rate) would also be wrong.  What I
am addressing is that even if a newborn can *not* be *proven* to be sentient
(a "person") that infaticide would still be wrong without inconsistencies with
abortion being ok.  (One way pro-lifers typically attack the personity argument
is to claim that it would condone infanticide; I show that it wouldn't.)

Unfortunately, you deleted the rest of my statement, which I doubt you even 
read.

>>>     It seems as though the pro-choice movement is more self-serving
>>>than it is logical.  I have yet to encounter a morally and logically
>>>correct example of justification of most cases of abortion.
>>
>>Read my response to your "conservative position" post.  Sometimes abortion can
>>be the *more* moral thing to do.

>Only sometimes?  That's progress.

Obviously there are cases where I can not justify an abortion.  I feel that
abortions (late term especially) done for genetic selection are "wrong"--though
I can't demonstrate that with my personity argument.  I was merely pointing out
that *there exist* cases where not only is it not "wrong", it may actually be
*better*.  One scenario, however hypothetical or unlikely, suffices to show
existance.

>>>Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
>>
>>-Rob

>-- 
>Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de   "You take slaves when you make us free,
>                               when you make us free your way"
>                             World Party - 'Ain't going to come til I'm ready'

I love it, an argument between three different "pro-choice" positions:
Abortion is wrong, but should be legal vs. Abortion is not wrong because a
fetus is not a person vs. Abortion should be legal because the fetus has no
right to remain inside a woman's body.    8-)

-Rob