Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-spice.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-spice!tdn
From: tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Madelyn's question
Message-ID: <342@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 23-Apr-85 01:09:31 EST
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-s.342
Posted: Tue Apr 23 01:09:31 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 24-Apr-85 05:18:53 EST
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 34

> 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).

This very much IS a matter of responsibility.  If you go out and get in an
auto accident, even though you took every avenue POSSIBLE to avoid one (short
of not driving), you don't have the right simply to walk away in the case that
another person is involved.  One of the consequences of making the CHOICE to
drive is that you might cause an auto accident, despite your best intentions,
and be required to take RESPONSIBILITY for it.  One of the consequences of
making the CHOICE to have sex is that you might cause a pregnancy, despite
your best intentions.  It should not be legal to avoid responsibility for this
CHOICE by killing the baby, who had absolutely no say in the matter.

> 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?

By the same logic, society is oppressing your "free will" by insisting that you
take responsibility for anyone that you might injure when driving.  CHOICES and
CONSEQUENCES go hand-in-hand.  The reason that abortion should be illegal is
that it forces someone else (the baby) to give up their most fundamental right
(the right to life) so that you might avoid the CONSEQUENCES of your CHOICE.

If you can come up with a birth-control method that (a) is 100% effective, and
(b) doesn't involve violating the rights of babies, go right ahead.  Or if you
can come up with a life-support system that allows babies to spend their "pre-
birth" months in an incubator, do so.

                                        -- Thomas Newton
                                           Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA