From: frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer)
Subject: Re: Can some pro-lifer please answer this SIMPLE question?
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 19:57:01 GMT

kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
: A question to pro-lifer's (of the George Bush variety):

I'm not of the "George Bush variety", but will I do?  :-)

: 
: Just answer the question, please refrain from wondering off or dodging.

Don't see why I should, when so few here return the courtesy, but I'll try.

: 
: > & >> = MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
: ------------------------------------------------------------------------
: >> In the case of rape or incest, why are you willing to sentence an
: >> innocent baby to death for its father's crime?  It had no control 
: >> over the manner in which was conceived.
: >
: > I posted a similar question earlier in this thread, and have yet to
: > get a response from *anyone* who supports this position.  I suspect 
: > they can't justify this position on moral grounds, so they ignore it.
: ------------------------------------------------------------------------


My present view is formed by the notion that you cannot kill a human being
(small 'h') unless in self-defence, and that a woman's right to bodily 
autonomy, which should obtain otherwise, should be nullified by her 
obligations as a parent ('proto' or otherwise), by the fact that her child's 
life is threatened, and by the fact that the threat presented to that child's 
life is down to the woman and her partner.

In case of rape, including statutory rape, the mother is not responsible for the risk 
to the fetus, her rapist is (sometimes _excluding_ statutory rape).  So her right 
to bodily autonomy should obtain - namely, the same principle that allows you to refuse 
to give blood, though that would save a life.  It's selfish of you, sure, but 
you are not responsible for a given person's needing blood.  I believe the law 
should be (though it is not always) different when you are charged with the care 
of a human being, and further _responsible_ for them needing a transfusion, say.  
This is the position of the fetus.  It needs the womb, or it will surely die.  The 
parents (or rapist) are responsible for that need, and the onus is on them to
fulfil it, in my view.

In case of incest, I share your bafflement at the pro-life position.   
I don't understand why parentage through incest should negate a child's right to 
live, any more than I think that a physical or mental handicap makes a person a 
less worthy individual.   Nor do I understand why rape, a crime of violence, is so 
often uttered in the same breath as incest, which is a horse of a different kettle 
of fish, so to speak :-).  But hey, I don't understand why people think abortion has 
something to do with sexual morals, either.

Hope some of this makes sense to you, and though I don't expect you to agree,
I hope that you will agree that my position is at least reasonable, and consistent 
with itself.  If it isn't, I'm sure I'll be hearing from you :-)  That's it for
now - it's late, and I'm going home!

--
Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de     "I heard about a couple livin' in the USA
                                 They traded in their baby for a chevrolet"
				   - Elvis Costello.  'Less than Zero'
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy.misc