Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: Madelyn's question Message-ID: <5185@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 22-Apr-85 09:55:07 EST Article-I.D.: cbscc.5185 Posted: Mon Apr 22 09:55:07 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 23-Apr-85 06:43:38 EST References: <361@ttidcc.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus Lines: 73 From Adrienne Regard: (Note: Articles being discussed here were originally titled, "One person's view".) >Re Paul Debuc's >A response to Madelyn T. Gould: That's "Dubuc". >>You're making a lot of assumptions here. Even if they were valid >>assumptions I don't think they would justify abortion. > >Paul, do any of the assumptions matter? Isn't the fact that she has >positively, determinedly, rationally decided NOT to have children enough? >What if there was absolutely NOTHING wrong with her? But she simply, >clearly, specifically ruled out that possibility in her life, took all >adequate steps, legally and morally, against the eventuality, and still >ended up pregnant? The assumptions seemed to matter to Madelyn. >This isn't an issue of _convenience_ pro-lifer's like to flame against. >This isn't an issue of _sloth_ on the part of the woman involved. This >isn't even an issue of _responsibility_ since the woman in question has >taken every avenue POSSIBLE to avoid pregnancy (short of refusing her >husband his conjugal rights, which action would surface a whole nother >issue). (moral issues and religious issues, too, remember). Yes, I believe it is an issue of _responsibility_, for both husband and wife. If the husband wants his "conjugal rights" he ought to share in the conjugal responsibilities. Besides, do you think women only have sex with their husbands in order not to deny them their conjugal rights? I thought the women got something out of it too. >Oh, I get it. Sex is ONLY for procreation, right? Act of God, even for >the atheists, right? No one has free will to choose a course for their >life, right? Especially if they disagree with you, right? No, you don't get it. I agree that sex is not ONLY for procreation. But are you going to maintain that it has NOTHING to do with procreation? The argument being presented here seems to imply that. Having sex *is* how pregnancy ocurrs most naturally. People who engage in that ought to be aware of this as a possibility and take it into account. Of course I believe in free will and freedom to choose; and that includes sexual behaviour. You seem to treat sex as an activity that it beyond the realm of individual choice. I believe that people generally *choose* of have sex. If they will not accept the possibility of pregnancy that goes along with their choice, I think they are being irresponsible. >Is the rest of your argument really "everybody has to have kids" rather >than "abortion itself is wrong"? Or "nobody get's any choice in this >world"? Deep down in the heart of it, what are you proselytizing for? Is your argument really "everybody has to have sex so it is unfair to say that people must be responsible if their having sex results in pregnancy"? No, I think you know better. So why don't you give me a little credit and not imply that I hold such ridiculous beliefs? >For you, Paul, I'd be interested to hear whether you think abortion may >be justified in cases of rape/incest, and/or when the mother's life would >be endangered. Is there _any_ time abortion is right? Mail or post, as >you prefer. But this isn't what we're discussing here is it? You're new to this group or you would know where I stand here. I've discussed my position openly in the past. But in the context of this discussion it is avoiding the issue and my position is irrelevant to the argument here. With regard to this discussion, does it make any difference what I believe about these cases? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd