Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watarts.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watarts!dbrown
From: dbrown@watarts.UUCP (Dave Brown)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Dividing Lines
Message-ID: <8247@watarts.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 18-Feb-85 20:25:08 EST
Article-I.D.: watarts.8247
Posted: Mon Feb 18 20:25:08 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 19-Feb-85 06:18:35 EST
References: <150@spp1.UUCP> <252@scgvaxd.UUCP> <382@cadovax.UUCP>, <296@psivax.UUCP> <390@cadovax.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 70

> What I'm trying to say here, is that there are other pro-choice arguments,
> and it is these other arguments where I believe the really important issues
> lie.
> 
> I think the real argument is something more like this;  When one individual
> (let's call it the 'dependant' or 'foetus' ) depends on another individual
> ( the 'dependee' or 'mother' ) for it's life support, this does not mean
> that the 'dependee' totally gives up her rights in lieu of the dependants
> needs.  And in fact, the dependee may have certain rights to 'pull-the-plug'
> or withdraw support from the dependant.  This may not mean that this may
> occur without restriction, but there are situations that are complicated
> enough that explicit legislation may not be able to effectively address.
> 
> Some of the legitimate 'reasons' a mother may have of withdrawing support
> are:
> 
>    1. Physical health of the mother
>    2. Emotional health of the mother

Here lies a problem, just what constitutes physical and emotional health?
More than one person has equated emotional health with economics.

>    3. Age of the mother (this means too young OR too old I expect)
>    4. Conflicts with the mothers means of livelihood
Once again this is a value judgement on the right of the mother against
the right of the child.
> 
> And, there may be other reasons.  In fact there may also be a 'grey area'
> that involves mothers who are considered incapable of 'proper care'.  This 
> could be for a variety of reasons, such as:
> 
>     1. Insanity
>     2. Mental Deficiency
>     3. Drug addiction
>     4. Hereditary defects (in the mother)

Why punish the potential child for the problem of the mother?
The terminating of a potential life for the sake of possible defects
would have halted the chances of more than one genius.
Bethoven would have been never born.

> 
> And I don't mean 'proper care' once the foetus is born, but while it is
> still 'in utero'.   A mother who is highly depressed, smokes, drinks, etc.
> may cause the death or disfigurement of the foetus even without an abortion.
> And in fact, situations like this may be likely to occur without the thought
> and benifit of ANY counseling on the matter that one would get while applying
> for legal abortion.

On this note I hve to agree with you. The pro-life forces have been guilty
of avoiding the problems of the mother.

> 
> I feel that the government cannot assume that all people are innately
> 'responsible' and can be expected to or coerced into providing support
> to other humans.  And certainly it was not difficult when abortion WAS illegal
> for someone to obtain one anyway.  And in fact this may have been the primary
> reason it was legalized in the first place.

I realize that we are talking about people's lives here,but,
why do things that are illegal and dangerous(Back street butchers)
have to be legalized?               
> 
> "CHOOSE life, don't legislate it!"
Nor should one possibly legislate against it.
 

Sincerely yours,

                        Dave Brown