Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!godot!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: what-if-you're-raped argument
Message-ID: <196@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Oct-84 09:33:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.196
Posted: Thu Oct 25 09:33:16 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Oct-84 06:26:45 EDT
References: <1987@stolaf.UUCP> <47700016@hpfcla.UUCP> <441@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 19

> The "what if you're raped" argument is not a good one for two reasons.
> First, the vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with rape, and
> second, if the fetus should have the right to live, then that most
> fundamental right should not be denied even in the very sad situation
> of the rape of the mother.
> 				-Liz Allen

Liz, you are not clearly presenting the choice involved.  There are two,
debatable "rights" involved, and priorities must be assigned to each.
The first is the "right" of a woman to choose whose children to bear.
The second is the "right" of a gamete/embryo/fetus/newborn to live.
You assume that the second is absolute, and thus always overrides the first.
Many of us, however, would grant that in cases of rape the first overrides
the second.  This is a demonstration to us that we don't think of the
second as absolute.  That knowledge enables us to then perform a balancing
test, to decide when abortion is alright, and when not.
-- 

Mike Huybensz				...mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh