Subject: Re: N-C abortion 
Distribution: world
Organization: Keristor Systems
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90c (ka9q DIS 1.18, CC 1.18c)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:37:49 +0000


In article <6063@sumax.seattleu.edu> mjsimko@sumax.seattleu.edu writes:

>        The issue is a claim to rights. The rights of the unborn vs. the
>right of the mother. However distasteful abortion may be to a person, the
>rights of the mother have to win.

In *your* opinion.

>        We must all agree that anything can happen to the potential person
>from the moment of conception until birth. The unborn could miscarry, the
>tissue development could be less or more than "normal", the
>mother could die, or the unborn can develope normally  and
>be succussefully born. (Let us not forget that the unborn might also not
>survive the birth or removal from the womb even after nomal gestation.)
>        There is no guarantee for the unborn that once conceived it will
>successfully complete the transition from one cell to personhood. We cannot
>guarantee the potential an actuality of exsistence.

Huh?  There's no guarantee that a child once born will live to reach
adulthood.  By your reasoning that gives the parents the right to end
that child's life if it is convenient to them...

>        The reality of the situation is that the mother, as an actual
>person, has the greatest claim to rights. This being self-evident when all
>would agree that if the life of the mother were at stake, her right to
>continued exsistence outweighs any claim of the unborn.

Yes, *if* the choice is between the existence of the mother or of the
child, then the mother's existence will take priority _if_she_wishes_
_it_.  If the mother (voluntarily) said "Save the child at the cost of
my life", that's her choice.

However, the vast majority of abortions are *not* in life-threatening
situations.  They are because of a consensual act between the mother and
the father, which in general the parents knew in advance could lead to a
pregnancy.  When this happens they suddenly decide that they don't want
to bear the consequences (or perhaps they decided this in advance, which
would make it premeditated murder).

By this (wanting to avoid the consequences of their actions) they are
declaring themselves not responsible citizens.  By that token, they are
also declaring their indifference to the rights of others, and thus are
a potential danger to their neighbours.

Now, there is also the case of where the mother did not consent to the
act which caused the pregnancy (note that in contrast with current laws,
I do not regard whether she has previously consented to similar acts to
be relevant - see below).  This is true (obviously) in the case of rape,
and may be considered to be true in some cases where the woman does not
understand the consequences (for instance, mental retardation or severe
lack of sexual education).  In those cases it *may* be the best thing
for the mother to abort the pregnancy.

I mentioned previous consent there.  The way cases of rape are judged
(certainly here in Britain, and from what I've heard also in America)
the usual defence strategy is to dig up all the dirt on the woman that
they can.  Did she spend a night alone with her boyfriend once?  Was she
wearing 'provocative' clothing (not too long ago, that could mean
showing her ankles!)?  If she's actually consented to non-marital sexual
activity before, that's a definite black mark.

In my opinion, all of these things are irrelevant, and in a just society
would be grounds for a suit of defamation.  My 'ideal' judgement would
be solely on the case in point, which is one of assault - and, if a
pregancy ensues, in my view the woman would have grounds for making it
"assault causing actual bodily harm", and require damages from the
father for any loss of reputation, job related problems (including
support for the time that she is unable to work after the child is
born), medical bills, etc.

On the other hand, a man incorrectly charged with rape could also claim
some of those damages...

Of course, "Utopia is not an option" (I've been hanging round this
newsgroup too long <g>)...

Chris

***********************************************************************
*  chris@keris.demon.co.uk      *                                     *
*  chriscr@cix.compulink.co.uk  *  FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life)  *
*  100014.3217@compuserve.com   *                                     *
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian