From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Roe v. Wade and abortion (was Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:46:41 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College, Ft. Collins, CO 80523

In article <0zwnlb#.gordons@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
|> <Sep12.083739.44238@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
|> ><v=tny+f.gordons@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
|> >|> <Sep09.195258.92238@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
|> >|> ><fcknh0m.gordons@netcom.com>, gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
|> >|> ><1992Sep2.032432.10808@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|> ...
|> >|> >	Ask an ignorant question.....
|> >|> >	It certainly involves force against the living human being inside the
|> >|> >mother's womb.
|> >|> >	I know, I know, this particular living human being is not deserving of
|> >|> >the protection of human rights.  In your opinion.
|> >|> 
|> >|> Now Steve, I don't know why you think you know what I'm thinking.  In this
|> >|> case you are dead wrong.  I absolutely believe that a fetus is a living
|> >|> human being.  It's just not a person.  And (are you ready for this?) even
|> >|> if it was a person I would support unrestricted abortion upto the time of
|> >|> birth.  You see, the being that the fetus resides in is normally called a
|> >|> 'woman'.  If you'll check your biology books you'll see that she is a
|> >|> human being too.  If you'll check your legal books you'll see that she is
|> >|> a person.  And if you'll check the constitution you'll find that no
|> >|> *person* unconvicted of a crime my be forced into bodily servitude against
|> >|> their will.
|> >
|> >	I do not suggest that the woman be forced into bodily servitude.  I do
|> >assert, however, that she is responsible for the consequences of her behavior on
|> >others, including the living human being in her womb for whose existence she is responsible.
|> 
|> And you believe she should be forced into bodily servitude (read: slavery)
|> because of an action she may or may not have taken voluntarily.  Do you
|> also believe that this should be the case for other actions taken by
|> people in other situations?  Car accidents and car insurance come to mind.

	I believe that if one person puts another person into a dangerous
situation, the former is responsible for the safety of the latter.  I do not
propose that any particular deed must be done or measure taken; but if the victim
dies or is injured, the one who caused it is responsible.

|> >	Gordon, you're a person (I hope).  Suppose I push a button which causes
|> >you to be in my body.  Can I abort you?  Yes or no?
|> 
|> Sure.

	Oh, this is a jewel.  This might be .sig material.  Let me get this
straight: if I do something which causes you to appear in my body I can kill you
at will and you would have no legal recourse?  All this despite the fact that you
neither requested nor granted permission for your body to be put inside mine?
	Do you believe, in general, that a person should be responsible for the
effect of their behavior on others?  Or do you think that any consequences of one
person's behavior on another are the responsibility of the one who was affected? 
And if you accept the latter position, then if I ran you over with a car, why,
that'd be YOUR problem, wouldn't it?
	No dodges, Gordon.  Your answer above was simple and beautifully clear,
and I'd be in your debt if you would follow one superb answer with a few others.

|> >Live long and prosper....well, now that I think about it....at
|> >least prosper....well....
|> 
|> Nice of you to wish an early death on me Steve.  Such kind and
|> compassionate people these pro-"life"rs are.

	It was a joke, Gordon, OK?  Live long and prosper.  Really.  I want you
to live even if you ARE ignorant.

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.abortion