From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 26 Aug 92 12:50:29 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>In article <23917@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wri
>tes:
>>In talk.abortion, serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
#>>> Just because I would allow abortions in cases of incest and rape does
#>>> not mean that I do not believe a fetus has a right-to-life.  I do believe
#>>> that a woman should not be forced go through a pregnancy caused my
#>>> unwanted, illegal or immoral actions from a man.

>>It does show you to be inconsistant, though.

>Both sides of this issuce, pro-life and pro-choice, are inconsistent.

Not really. Please show me how the pro-choice side is inconsistent.

>And depending on your belief system, he is not being inconsistent.

Umm, he is, logically. But I'll grant you that a belief system can twist
anything into a consistent theme, depending on how warped you want to
become.

>>After all, what does the
>>fetus do in the case of rape or incest that is different than a fetus
>>created from a consensual sex act?
>>What is the difference in the fetuses?

>Nothing.  The fetus is being killed as punishment for the crimes of the
>father.  This does has biblical precedent.

Personally, I don't care if it has a Manson precedent. What happened
to that biblical saying that babes are innocent, or whatever it was
along those lines, and why, in this case, is that being subverted?

>>Why is it allowable to kill one and not the other, why does one not
>>have "The right to life" while the other does? It smacks of hypocrisy
>>and the "punishment" theme.

>Both have the right-to-life.  To be consistent, a man convicted of a rape
>that gives rise to a pregnancy in his victim, should conceivably be
>convicted of murder, as well.

But he did nothing to kill what was conceived. He probably had no control
over that particular aspect at all; he just initiated the situation.
(Not that I'm defending rapists here mind you, just that John's statement
made *zero* sense in view of logic and common sense.) This is still
an inconsistent view, imo, and sounds like a justification (however
weak) for making an exception to your stance that there is a right to
life. It sounds like there is a right to life except when your father/grand-
father/ancestral relative was a criminal for which you, although not
yet born or capable of doing wrong or even of knowing what happened
are to be punished for. I don't buy this at all, and I think you'd be
hard pressed to even make a plausible sounding case for this view much
less prove that it is consistent.

I'd also like to see you reconcile this with your bible's statement
that babes are innocent.

>>If you must guess, let me alleviate it for you. I'm fully pro-choice.
>>I can no longer see a reason to legislate anything regarding when an
>>abortion can or cannot be allowed. I forget if it's rocker or Adrienne
>>Regard, but one of them holds the opinion (maybe both, or someone else)
>>that why should there be legislation for something that isn't a problem.
>>I concur.

>It is obviously a problem, or there would be no controversy, and no
>debate.

Show me a late-term fetus that was aborted for other than medical reasons,
adn you'll begin to have a case. One late-term abortion for non-serious
reasons, however, would only be an exception, and not a problem. You'd
have to show that this is at least a semi-regularly occurring phenomenom,
for it to be termed a problem. (regular being more than a couple of
times in a generation) Then you'd also have to show that this occurred
for trivial reasons, as I'll have to throw out any cases you present
where the abortion was late due to inability of the woman to obtain
one earlier, such as in states where parental consent laws were/are
attempted for minors, and the woman had to wait until she was considered
an adult, etc.

>There are very good reasons for at least limiting abortion.  Such as:

>1)      While we can argue whether or not a very early term abortion is
>        murder, very few people would agree that aborting a fetus of
>        38 weeks gestation is not murder.

Very few, if any, happen this late into term for non-medical reasons.
As much as statistics abound on the net, I've never seen anyone reference
a trivial late-term abortion. Landing on people with spaceships would
also be a problem, if this occurred. It has about the same relevance.

>2)      Making it illegal to abort a fetus that is the product of
>        consensual sexual intercourse would at least give both the
>        father and mother equal levels of responsibility, rights and
>        obligations.


??? Please explain this one. As it stands now, if abortion were outlawed,
the woman would bear *all* responsibilities and obligations, the man
could walk away. Then again, you sound like you'd like the situation
of romance as portrayed in a movie called "trancers" I believe, where
lawyers sit down and hammer out a pre-sex contract for evening as to
what will and will not be permitted, what diseases were known to be
in existance or had been, and what further responsibilities would exist,
including not ever seeing each other again for the legal one-night stand.
Leave the lawyers out of it. I like it the way it is now just fine.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion