Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA
Path: utzoo!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!ucla-cs!cs111olg
From: cs111olg@ucla-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
Message-ID: <9534@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 2-Mar-86 03:41:44 EST
Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.9534
Posted: Sun Mar  2 03:41:44 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 3-Mar-86 01:57:25 EST
References: <11560@watnot.UUCP>
Reply-To: cs111olg@ucla-cs.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev (the student incarnation))
Distribution: na
Organization: The Land Of Mental Midgets
Lines: 93
Summary: I can't stand imbecilic righteosness...

In article <11560@watnot.UUCP> pdobeda@watnot.UUCP (pdobeda) writes:
>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

THAT is ONE of the points we disagree on, Paul! I beleive the life of
the mother is of a far greater import.

>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??")

Why? Why is it "another question entirely"? I feel the an unwanted child
birth DOES threaten the mother's life if not physically, then emotionally
and financially.

>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.

WHY?! Why should you damage the life of one human being to give another
one a (quite possibly) equally miserable life?!

>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?

Marriage is entered into by MUTUAL CONSCENT and can be annulled when
either of the partners is not satisfied by the relationship (or at 
least it is so in most civilized countries). It is very hard to get out 
of motherhood for a number of reasons ( mostly emotional ones, but in
case of teenage minority girls [black, hispanic] it is also the question
of ethnicity and "undesirable ancestry")

>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.

Garbage! "In time" in this case is when the kids graduate high school.
To effectively parent a child BOTH parents have to spend AS MUCH TIME
AS POSSIBLE with the kids. In case of a single mother (or even worse a 
single teenage underpriveleged mother) she has to work to feed herself
and her child. No possibility of getting a good education or gaining
a useful set of skills that would allow her to get a decent job. No 
possibility of spending ENOUGH time with her kid. All her plans ruined.
Her life crippled. And most people will never forgive their kids for 
ruining their lives ("I could have been SOMEBODY!")

I don't want to make it a definite statement but the facts I've come
accross suggest that a majority of abused kids are unwanted ones, 
I have no facts regarding teen-age gang violence or teenage crime in
general, but I would be surprized if those kids grew up with a lot of
parental attention. 


>In the meantime, who is harmed?

Both the mother and the unwanted child will be harmed if the child is 
born.

>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.

If we put individual's rights and freedoms above all else (as would be
rational) and make happines of individuals paramount to all other 
aspirations we might have (what good is a prosperous nation of perpetually
depressed nervous wrecks?) then abortion issue very nicely fits into my
definition of basic freedoms. 

If, on the other hand, we state that the interests of HUMAN RACE (or more
likely the current government in a given country) supercede the 
individual wants, needs and aspirations, then SURE! We can't have abortion
on demand! Only when The State tells the woman to have one is it OK.
And same with pregnancies : only when The State tells you it's OK.
And, as long as we are at it, let's also regulate the WHO WITH you can
have your kids.

Paul, I *KNOW* you did not mean anything like what I have said in the
last paragraph. But we can substitute "The Church" for "The State".
Or "The Society", or "The Moral Majority". When is it OK to tell people
what to do and limit (deny?) their rights? Who will decide? What will they
stop at? Will they?

------------------------
"Ones who live in glass houses shouldn't."
						Oleg Kiselev
						ucla-cs!oac6.oleg