From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 6 Jan 93 12:30:50 CST

In article <C0FAKM.1rE@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
>
>>In article <C04w4u.CBs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>
>>[massive, merciful deletia]
>>>Don't put words into my mouth.  Having sex and getting pregnant are not crimes.
>>>They are, however, actions that an adult must deal with like an adult.  
>>>
>>And what if the individual involved is _not_ an adult?
>
>Doesn't make a difference.  Then her parents are responsible for her.  That
>is the fact in almost every situation involving minors.  

You didn't answer the question.  Dealing with pregnancy
and childbirth is a great deal to expect of a _child_.
Would you require the parents of 14-year-old rape victims
to be responsible for making sure this suffering is inflicted
on her?  I'd call that child abuse.
>>>
>>>You are wrong.  You are so completely wrong I know you have NO understanding
>>>of this subject.  Women's lives are EQUAL to preborn babies.  Only when the 
>>>mother will definitely die from the birth should the baby be killed.  This
>>>should be treated as a great tragedy, which it is.  The baby deserves a funeral,
>>>not a garbage can.
>
>>I think a woman's life is worth more than that of a
>>conceptus.  2/3 of all zygotes will never make it to term
>>because of natural factors.  What is it about the wishes
>>of a woman that makes them inferior to the whims of nature?
>>Do you think only women have equal worth with embryoes, or
>>do you ascribe this valuation to men as well?  Would you 
>>demand 100% certainty of maternal death before the woman's
>>life would be considered?  No other complications short of
>>death would qualify?  No permanent physical damage would
>>move you to compassion for the woman?
>
>Let me make this plain and simple.  If you start with the premise that
>the preborn baby is a person, then all other considerations are moot.

Not if the woman is a person.  You seem to have a problem
with that.  Your 'premise', I believe, rests on some hidden
presuppositions about the nature of pregnancy.  The issue
is never 'plain and simple' for those who don't ignore the
woman's pain and risk, and you needn't expect us to allow
you to build on your 'premise' without examining the other
concepts upon which it rests.

>For example: if you had a choice between sacrificing your leg, or sacrificing
>your mother, which would you choose?  I'd sacrifice my leg.  Murder is wrong.  

But if it was between sacrificing a zygote and sacrificing your
mother, it's 'sorry, Mom'.

>It is my contention that the preborn baby is a person, and that it deserves
>all rights implied by that label.  
>
>Compassion? Of course I have compassion.  But just when does compassion
>warrant murder?  Since when does any mother have the right to have her
>child MURDERED to protect herself from a medical problem?  Its easy
>for you to talk about being compassionate.  Why not try a little compassion
>for that poor baby you want hacked into little pieces.  
>
I never said that I wanted abortions to take place.  At
this time, I think they are often better than the alternatives.
I do not think abortion is murder, nor do I think it possible to 
embrace the notion of fetal personhood without conceptually
suspending some of the rights/personhood qualities of the
mother.

>>You seem to think that a woman incurs the responsibility
>>to suffer _any_ amount of physical damage, up to, and possibly
>>including _death_ (since we'd sacrifice all the women whose
>>deaths could not be predicted with certainty) as a result
>>of consensual sex.  What equivalent _physical_ responsibility
>>do you propose for a man who has sex?  If you say he has to
>>support the kid, how does that differ from the mother's duty
>>to support the kid?
>
>The woman incurs the responsibility to suffer virtually any amount of
>physical damage, yes.  

Thank you.  It is now completely obvious to this forum
that you consider women to be less than people.

>                       There would of course be exceptions depending on
>the specifics of this "damage".  

How sweet.  How bad would it have to be?

>                                 There is no way to make a man physically
>at risk for his partners pregnancy.  

This statement is not correct.
Oh, rocker?  Wouldja mind reposting "The Value of a Man"?

>                                     The father has a financial and
>moral responsibility towards his children.  
>
So does the mother.  You don't think the notion of equality
is worth persuing here, do you?
>
>Edward Simmonds- getting sick of repeating things to people who don't read
>                 what he has already posted  

You advocate reducing half the population to the status of
mere containers.  Don't be surprised if you are asked to
repeat and clarify a bit.

muriel
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism