From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Questions for Pro-Choice advocates
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:27:21 CST

In article <C0K6zE.1wr@news.cso.uiuc.edu> updike@bug.cat.com (Michael Updike) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.155810.14110@hemlock.cray.com>, mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>|> In article <C0Jxtu.L5L@news.cso.uiuc.edu> updike@bug.cat.com (Michael Updike) writes:
>|> >
>|> >This is where I differ.  If there is no difference between the fetus/baby
>|> >I need to consider the rights of the fetus/baby balanced against the rights
>|> >of the mother.  It's not a pleasent choice but I think
>|> >society has an obligation to consider this when they determine
>|> >abortion policy. IMO the fetus/babies life should be the overiding concern
>|> >even though this may cause emotional or psychological harm to the mother.
>|> >(I guess that sounds cruel but whenever conflicting rights are involved somebody
>|> >is hurt.)
>|> 
>|> What about physical harm, and risks to the mother's
>|> life or health?
>
>If the mothers life is in imminent danger from a pregnency (something society
>needs to make judgements about with the input of medical personnel) 
>then the results of either decision
>is equally destructive. Even though the fetus lacks intent to harm I see no
>problem with the mothers life taking priority if she decides. 

Would you require the woman to await society's decision
while her life was in imminent danger?

>                                                               If she decides
>to have the baby and sacrafice her life that seems reasonable to me too. I
>see no compelling reasoning for society to interfere.
>
Oddly enough, I agree, in the context of the nice,
safe, secure society in which we presently live.
If the situation were such that the woman would
leave behind an infant, plus one or more other
children, to the hazards of inadequate care and
livelihood, then I think such heroics should be
strongly discouraged.

>|>  What about placing pregnant women
>|> in a category of individuals who have fewer rights
>|> to their bodies than all other born persons?  Do you
>|> think that women could ever acheive equal status with
>|> men in a society where their rights were subject to
>|> suspension on the basis of your, or society's, concerns
>|> about the fetus?
>
>I don't think equal status applies between men and women concerning the right
>to an abortion since men could never have one.  If they could it should be
>treated the same way (which ever way society decides).  

I think it's easy to _say_ this, when no rights of your
own are at risk.  But how can women approach economic
parity without reproductive freedom?  Do you not see how
unequal reproductive rights would hamper women in the
workplace?
>                                                        Since I believe the
>fetus should have rights, abortion involves more than control over one
>individuals body and therefore the competing rights need to be considered.
>
The fetus is not an individual in a physical sense.  When
you can support the fetus without commandeering the physical
resources of another, it may have individual rights.

>BTW, I don't want to suspend any rights based on my concerns. All I want to
>do is express my concerns and hopefully help to convince society in general
>that they have merit. At that point society would potentially make different
>decisions about abortion policy.

I hope it doesn't happen.  It would be a step backward.
If you would like to decrease the incidence of abortion
through better sex education and research into improved
contraceptives, I'd be all for it.

muriel
standard disclaimer