From: aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: University of Victoria
Date:  1 Jan 93 09:32:14 GMT

mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>The only expert opinion needed is the womans. It's her body, and if
>she doesn't want to feed a fetus, then she has the right to remove it.

Parents have an obligation to their children.
Since no one other than the pregnant woman can
provide for her child at this stage of his or
her life, whatever obligations exist are
conferred to her.
She accepted this responsibility when she 
consented to sexual relations -- unless she
did not comprehend the consequences of her actions.

Yes, you may infer that I would object to government
impairing the right of sexually assaulted women
to terminate an undesired pregnancy.
All simple statement that she did not consent to
sexual relations would suffice.

>>>>Therefore, the *only* way to provide an independent 
>>>>ajudication of these rights and do the best for all considered 
>>>>is to have the state provide an impartial tribunal to 
>>>>evaluate the situation.
>>
>>>This is not best for the woman.  Even when her request
>>>is granted, she would be subjected to humiliating and
>>>demeaning inquisition by strangers who may not always
>>>have her best interests at heart.
>>
>>If there is a procedure to make this operate while
>>preserving the dignity of those involved, I'd certainly
>>entertain it because it would be more likely that
>>people would support it.
>>Could the woman be given the option of remaining
>>anonymous?
>>
>Yeah, right. Wake up.

I only include this exchange to give you another
chance to contribute to the discussion.

>>When there is time to consider everyone's rights,
>>it is our responsibility to do so.
>You have yet to demonstrate that there are any rights here to be
>considered other then the womans. A fetus is not a person, and has no
>rights.

What right have you to consign a fetus to 
less than person status?
The fetus has some rights to be balanced against
those of the mother.  Meanwhile, the mother has
certain responsibilities towards her child.

>>Moreover, those women capable of delivering healthy
>>children need the reassurance that they and their
>>children will have some security in their futures.
>>
>So why do you think a woman has no purpose other then to deliver
>healthy children? Perhaps she simply does not *want* to have children.
>In such a situation, it is her right to remove the fetus.

A parent has certain obligations regarding their
children.  A pregnant woman is already a parent.
Her right to remove the fetus must be evaluated
against her child's right to continue its
existence.  The normal bodily changes experienced
during a pregnancy or the expected cost of raising
a child do not qualify as sufficient cause for 
expelling a fetus because this is what occurs
naturally in a process the woman freely initiated.

People (men and women) who do not want to have
children should abstain from sexual relations
(if they desire to curtail their children
for a time) or undergo sterilization (if they
decide they are finished forever).
Those practicing birth control should read the
little booklets they enclose so they will know
their expected pregnancy risk.

A IDLER