Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!wjh12!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!liz
From: liz@umcp-cs.UUCP (Liz Allen)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: what-if-you're-raped argument
Message-ID: <483@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 27-Oct-84 19:49:12 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.483
Posted: Sat Oct 27 19:49:12 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 30-Oct-84 05:34:58 EST
References: <1987@stolaf.UUCP> <47700016@hpfcla.UUCP> <441@umcp-cs.UUCP> <196@cybvax0.UUCP>
Reply-To: liz@umcp-cs.UUCP (Liz Allen)
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 52
Summary: 

In article <196@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:

>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.

Hmmm.  Was I mistaken to assume that, for the born, the right to
live is the most fundamental right?  In our society, killing another
human being is only sanctioned (1) in an execution after a lot of
due process and only for someone convicted of murder (or rape?) or
(2) in killing an enemy soldiers in a war.  I'm not saying whether
these are right or wrong; I'm just observing that our society
considers human life fairly precious (at least for those already
born!).  And, even when continuing someone's life requires a lot
of effort (as when someone is in need of a lot of medical care),
we usually consider it worth it.

Now, what I was trying to say, is that *if* we *do* confer the
right to life to the unborn and acknowledge that they, too, are
human beings just like the born, then, even in the very hard case
of rape, the unborn cannot be denied the right to live.  Fortunately,
as I have said before, rape constitutes a very small number of
unwanted pregnancies -- less than 1%.

>             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.

Perhaps you wish to confer a high value on the unborn's right to live
without allowing it to be as high as the born's right to live.  There
is some justification in that -- most prolifer's would grant the right
to an abortion if the mother-to-be's life is threatened.  (Fortunately,
medicine has advanced to the point that a tubular pregnancy is almost
the only case of this.)

However, you want to place a lower value than that...  Let me end
with this:  What value do you think should be placed on the life
of the unborn?  I'm all for raising this value in our society...
Almost none is pretty bad...
-- 
				-Liz Allen

Univ of Maryland, College Park MD	
Usenet:   ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz
Arpanet:  liz@maryland

"This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you:  God
 is light; in him there is no darkness at all" -- 1 John 1:5