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!linus!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!regard
From: regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Paul and Ed - the auto accident
Message-ID: <377@ttidcc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Apr-85 16:59:14 EST
Article-I.D.: ttidcc.377
Posted: Thu Apr 25 16:59:14 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Apr-85 03:15:56 EST
Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA.
Lines: 49


>Andrew:
>
>> I was really trying to address the argument that Paul Dubuc and
>> others have been advancing lately that goes something like this:
>>
>>       "A woman who has sex runs the risk of becoming
>>       pregnant.  Having an abortion is an attempt to
>>       evade the responsibility for taking that risk,
>>       and is therefore immoral."
>>
>> I wanted to illustrate that that argument is bogus by applying the
>> same argument to some other everyday risk.

Geez, at least Paul has the grace to mention that the responsibility belongs
on the shoulders of BOTH parties, not just the woman.

>Yes, you're quite right. That argument, as it stands, is bogus (kind
>of nice we can agree about something :-).  The important question is
>"how does one go about evading the responsibility" (i.e. what are the
>implications of fixing things up)? In the auto accident case, there are
>no externalities.  If you terminate a pregnancy, there are.

". . .there are" according to whom?  If a fetus is _not_ a human (as is
maintained by a number of people), the whole argument goes nowhere.

>Suppose, however, that you are in an accident, and some vital organ
>were destroyed. The doctors inform you that a transplant will work with
>little risk to yourself, but there just aren't any donors. You could,
>of course, force someone else to give you one, but that person would
>then die. What do you do?

You presuppose we are talking of a human donor.  This misses the argument.
>
>Suppose the organ wasn't vital, but lack of it would have a very negative
>impact on your life. What then?
>
>An even more interesting question (which I think has been asked
>before): what if the organ were vital for you, but not for the other
>person?
>
>To sum up: yeah, we all take risks and make mistakes, but how far
>should you be allowed to go in righting them?
>
>                                        Just asking,
>                                        Ed Sheppard
>                                        Bellcore
Would it be "moral" to get this required organ from a non-human donor?
From a primate?  From a "organ generation bank"?