From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: 29 Dec 92 10:43:55 CST

In article <aidler.725614614@sanjuan> aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler) writes:
>mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>
>>In article <aidler.725417859@sanjuan> aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler) writes:
>>>I have to disagree that the pregnant woman or her physician 
>>>alone have the right to terminate the life of the child. 
>>>The child has a right to life (and quality of life) that must
>>>be balanced with the mother's right to life (and quality of
>>>life).
>>>
>>So, if a few women more women lose their lives, or
>>their 'quality of life' would that be more 'balanced'?
>
>An independent party needs to consider the opinion of
>experts along with the interests of mother and child and 
>evaluate how realistic the woman's desire for an 
>abortion is compared with any reasonable alternatives.
>
You seem to think that women are not capable of
making decisions for themselves.  Is there any area
where you see the decision-making capabilities of
males as similarly deficient?

>>>Therefore, the *only* way to provide an independent 
>>>ajudication of these rights and do the best for all considered 
>>>is to have the state provide an impartial tribunal to 
>>>evaluate the situation.
>
>>This is not best for the woman.  Even when her request
>>is granted, she would be subjected to humiliating and
>>demeaning inquisition by strangers who may not always
>>have her best interests at heart.
>
>If there is a procedure to make this operate while
>preserving the dignity of those involved, I'd certainly
>entertain it because it would be more likely that
>people would support it.

If someone wanted to be your dictator, but promised
to be a benevolent despot, would you be more likely
to support it?

>Could the woman be given the option of remaining
>anonymous?
>
Why not just let her keep the option of making
her own decisions?

>>>Because there may be some urgency in the medical condition,
>>>these procedures should procede fairly rapidly.
>
>>What if 'fairly rapidly' is too slow, and the woman
>>dies?  
>
>That is a medical emergency.
>When there is time to consider everyone's rights,
>it is our responsibility to do so.
>
I don't think it's your responsibility, or anyone
else's, to consider removing my rights to determine
for myself how my genitals will be used.

>>What if facing a 'state tribunal' is too intimidating?
>>Woulf you like to go back to the days of illegal, unsterile,
>>or self-induced abortion?
>
>If this state tribunal ensures that women are
>treated with a compassionate attitude (regardless
>of whether they receive an abortion or not),
>I believe they would participate in the process.
>
You would like me to wager the lives of young 
women on your belief in the ability of the state
to provide compassionate tribunals to investigate
the most private kinds of issues with regards to
women, families, and reproductive rights?

>Moreover, those women capable of delivering healthy
>children need the reassurance that they and their
>children will have some security in their futures.
>
How will this be provided?  Who will pay?
Would you make sure that _all_ women and children
"have some security in their futures", before you 
began forbidding abortions to individual women?

>I would hope that when women see legitimacy in the
>process they wouldn't feel the need to go outside of
>society's institutions.
>
I would not bet the life of even _one_ woman on this
hope of yours.  Some of us here are old enough to
remember when women were injured or killed because
the law did not allow them to choose safe abortion
as a legal and private option.

You cannot give legal rights to fetuses without
removing rights from born women.  Would there be any 
equivalent forfeiture of rights for males under your 
system?

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion