From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: "Ice Cubes Applied To The Genitals..." 
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:49:21 GMT

In <1992Jul14.011105.20981@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu 
   (Keith A. Cochran) writes: >
In article <1992Jul9.210458.1582@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
In <1992Jul8.010428.8515@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu 
   (Keith A. Cochran) writes: >>>
In article <1992Jul6.210234.13150@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>>>

[...]

>[Good for you, Bill.  Now for a tougher one...]
>
>Denise (not her real name) is a mature adult working full time, and going to
>college part time to get a programming degree.  She met Ted (not his real
>name).  Three months (or so) later, they had sex.  She was on the pill.  Within
>a week or so after they began having sex, he became abusive.  She dumped him
>immediatly, and then found out she was pregnant.  Would you allow her to have
>an abortion?

No.  (Gee, I'm starting to feel *real* powerful...)

>>>How much damage to the (physical) health and well-being of the woman is
>>>required before you would allow her to have an abortion?
>
>>Damage isn't the measure I'd use - *risk* of damage is, as determined
>>by a physician. 
>
>So, since all pregnancies carry a *risk* of damage, all women should be 
>allowed to obtain an abortion, or what?

Risk is relative to the health of the respective woman and her ability
to safely carry a pregnancy to term as determined by her physician.

>>>Then explain what gives you, or the state, or the federal government the
>>>right to decide what is an "undue burden" for somebody who is perfecctly
>>>capable of making her own decisions.
>
>>>Answer the question, Bill.
>
>>I did.  The Constitution is "what" grants the power (not rights) to the 
>>various states to protect the interests of society.  
>
>Ok, I'll buy that.  Now please explain what you mean by "interests of 
>society".

The interests of society (should) include a sanctioned acknowledgement
that all human life is valuable.  Currently I fear the opposite value
is endorsed i.e., the value of human life is relative to the opinion
of the individual.  Such a philosophy (IMO) undermines interests of 
society in that human life can be treated as a commodity (with the 
blessing of the state).

>>>>(2) Focusing on the ability of women to make decisions negates the issue
>>>>of fetal interests.
>
>>>Please define "fetal interests".  Then explain why those "fetal interests"
>>>should have more power then the woman's rights.
>
>>For the sake of argument, why *shouldn't* they?  Can you show me a "right"
>>any more than I can show you an "interest"?  Neither concept is empirically
>>verifiable, yet you seem to think one is sacrosanct and the other nonsense.
>
>The government cannot force me to donate blood to save the life of another
>human.  The government cannot force me to donate organs to another human.  
>The government cannot force me give up the food I brought at the store to 
>hungry homeless people.  The government cannot force me to stop and attempt 
>to save the life of a person who has had a heart attack, even though I know 
>CPR.  The government cannot force me to give up my bodily resources for ano-
>ther.  Why do you feel it should be able to force women to give up their 
>bodily resources?

You didn't answer my question which, of course, is your option.  But I 
will answer yours.  If there were no direct cause and effect relationship
between voluntary (hetero)sexual activity and pregnancy, your question
would be appropriate.  In that event, your analogies would be relevant 
as well.  Please note that none of them implies any cause and effect re-
lationship between your behavior and the plight of the other human in-
volved.  

>>Fetal (life) interests have been acknowledged via legal precedent in many 
>>cases, so I'm not exactly out on a limb here.  Those interests are not
>>fundamentally different than yours or mine with regard to our tendency
>>to live our lives after conception.
>
>Um, shouldn't that read, "Fetal (life) interests AFTER VIABILITY have been..."

Maybe, I'll have to check.  Do you support restrictions after viability?

Bill
Newsgroups: talk.abortion