From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: That Responsibility Thing, Take 2
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:04:05 GMT

dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:


>In article <9585@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> 
>>If the woman agreed to have sex, than the invitation was made.

>>This is patently absurd.  The risks of pregnancy are well known and have
>>been for generations.  If two or three doctors agree that the woman is
>>at risk of dying than an abortion is called for.  Otherwise it is murder.
> 
>I still don't understand this argument.  Perhaps you can shed some 
>light on it for me Mark.  I see inconsistency in your two statements
>above.  But before we get into this inconsistency problem, out of
>curiosity, who would pay for two or three doctors the woman is
>required to get?
> 
>As I understand the argument you and many other pro-lifers are making,
>it is that the woman knew that coitus sex has the potential to lead
>to the creation of a fetus.  Since she knew at the time of the act
>of coitus sex that a fetus might be created, she therefore has an
>obligation to this fetus and she can not terminate this obligation
>by terminating her pregnancy and killing the fetus.   Is that 
>essentially the jist of your argument?

As I understand the argument you and many other supporters of legal
abortion are making, it is that the woman and the man knew that sex
is a purely sensual act which has no necessary procreative component.
Since they know at the time of the act that no responsibility towards
a possible future child is created, the woman has no obligation to 
this possible future child, and can terminate the unviable tissue 
mass at any time before a child IS created.  Is that essentially the
gist of your argument?

> 
>Anyway, why would risk of the woman dying allow for her to 
>terminate her obligation to this fetus?  I think we can assume
>the woman was aware at the time of coitus sex that death from
>pregnancy is also a potential outcome from her act.  I figure 
>that is as safe an assumption as yours that she knew pregnancy
>can result.  So since she created this obligation, knowing at
>the time that death to her was a potential risk, why does that
>allow her to escape from her obligation?  If she dies and the 
>fetus lives, wouldn't that result in her fulfilling her
>obligation?  

Anyway, why would the woman's decision to create a child create any
obligation in the man towards this child?  I think we can assume 
the woman was aware at the time of coitus sex that the man might 
might decide to hit the road after fucking her.  I figure that is as
safe an assumption as yours that both know sex to be an act which
creates no responsibility towards possible children.  So since she
created this child, knowing at the time that sex creates no obligations 
in her or in him, why does that allow her to get child support from him?
If she is financially strapped, isn't it because she chose to create
a child unilaterally?

>>Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

>Dan King

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion