Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watnot.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!bellcore!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!watnot!pdobeda
From: pdobeda@watnot.UUCP (pdobeda)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
Message-ID: <11560@watnot.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 28-Feb-86 13:22:01 EST
Article-I.D.: watnot.11560
Posted: Fri Feb 28 13:22:01 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 2-Mar-86 01:06:41 EST
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 52

Every now and then, an argument springs to light, often presented by
those presenting themselves as "Pro-Choice", to the effect that a
fetus interferes with a woman's right to "Liberty and the Pursuit of
Happiness".  In some way, it is inferred that this justifies the
killing of a fetus, as the fetus is not mentioned in the Constitution
as possessing these three rights, considered basic.

Yet, this bothers me somewhat.  Firstly, it seems to me that the
ordering of the rights is well-considered--one's liberty might be
constrained by another's right to life, and similarly, one's pursuit
of happiness might be hampered by another's right to liberty or life.
This, in my opinion, and I don't think that I am alone, should be
applied equally, to all people, and to those which might or might not
be people, until it is demonstrated clearly that such are not people.
In other words, grant the benefit of the doubt to the positive.

I do not necessarily feel that the right to life of a fetus should
supercede the right to life of the mother--they are equals.  The
question of what is ethical in the cases where the life of the mother
is threatened is another question entirely.  ("One will die--whom
shall it be??")

I do, however, feel that the possibility that a fetus *should* indeed
be granted the right of life (a legal question, now) is sufficient,
especially when considered against the restrictions, to be the
dominant right, when it becomes a question of the liberty of the
mother and her pursuit of happiness.

This, though, assumes that we are working from a 'good' definition of
what constitutes a restriction on the liberty of the mother.  Is
marriage to be outlawed, by virtue of the limits it gives to liberty?
If I am not allowed to drive as fast as I want wherever I want, is
this part of what is referred to by 'Liberty'?  I suspect that the
intention is for freedom from tyranny and oppression, and that one's
right to liberty is not intended to be licence to interfere negatively
with others.

Further, some rights are present *in time*.  A school is not
considered as wrong to require that students pursue their happiness at
a later time.  The mother will regain her fullest ability to pursue
her happiness in time--nothing is lost.

In the meantime, who is harmed?

Finally, there is the complex legal question, which we are just
brushing the tip of, as to when one's rights may be superceded for the
greater benefit of mankind.  Occasionally, this is cited as relevant
in the abortion issue.  Yet, over time, I have seen enought evidence
to convince me that abortions are to the ultimate detriment of
mankind, rather than to his benefit.

Paul D. Obeda