Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttidcc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!regard From: regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: responsibilty issue Message-ID: <372@ttidcc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 23-Apr-85 17:44:12 EST Article-I.D.: ttidcc.372 Posted: Tue Apr 23 17:44:12 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 26-Apr-85 03:22:21 EST Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA. Lines: 51 >> 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. Yeah, and take it a step further -- if the reason you got into the auto accident was a failure of the equipment that has been tested and passed by the U.S. govt, you sue the automaker for an unsafe product. And the automaker pays the fine. In a pregnancy situation, I suppose you can sue the hospital who did the sterilization procedure (although it is known that no procedure on the human body is completely predictable), and maybe even win (assume it is their fault for the moment). Does that mean that the hospital then takes care of the kid? No. It's yours, warts and all. > 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. Here we get into the free will vs. deterministic universe discussions they are having on net.philosophy right now. A baby cannot decide when to be conceived. It cannot create itself from nothing and plant itself into a womb. It's "fundamental" right to life is not fundamental at all, but a right that is granted at a cost to others (the parents, the society, etc.). A baby is recognised _by the people who grant this so called "fundamental" right_ as being a person (and thus gaining the right) at birth. There are factional disagreements as to whether or not that should be extended to 3 months prior to birth, 6 months, or from the point of conception. That is the debate, in a nutshell. >If you can come up with a birth-control method that (a) is 100% effective One is tempted to respond "why do men ask women, then?" or "why do men not carry the responsibility of the child, then" (I'm talking about single parent (women) households here) but it isn't germaine. >(b) doesn't involve violating the rights of babies, go right ahead. You are talking about fetuses, not babies. I don't agree with you that fetuses are human and therefore have rights. Fetuses become babies at birth and are granted rights by the permission of their parents and society. >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. What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?