Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!tektronix!tekig!tekig5!david From: david@tekig5.UUCP (David Hayes) Newsgroups: talk.abortion Subject: Re: It's still mine Message-ID: <1140@tekig5.UUCP> Date: Tue, 16-Sep-86 15:42:12 EDT Article-I.D.: tekig5.1140 Posted: Tue Sep 16 15:42:12 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 22-Sep-86 23:30:27 EDT References: <5152@decwrl.DEC.COM> <1091@ogcvax.UUCP> Reply-To: david@tekig5.UUCP (David Hayes) Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Lines: 71 In article <1091@ogcvax.UUCP> pase@ogcvax.UUCP (Douglas M. Pase) writes: >In article susan@madvax.UUCP (Susan Finkelman) writes: >> >>Once a woman is pregnant there is *NO* easy way out. Planned or unplanned, >>wanted or unwanted, if I am pregnant it's my body and my choice. >> > >That's like saying "If I have a child it's my child and my choice..." No, no, Doug, that is not what she is saying. She is saying no one has the right to control her body, not the fetus, and especially not you. >Seriously though, folks, the fact is, we don't always have total choice >over what we do to/with our own bodies. For example, we are not allowed >to pump our veins full of controlled substances. (I'm not arguing what we >have the ABILITY to do, only our LEGAL/MORAL responsibilities.) We're not >allowed to use our bodies for prostitution, or to hurt other people. I agree about hurting other people, but you can get a real debate on the other two. > >We are all responsible for our own actions. Everyone has the freedom to >choose whether or not to have a child. That freedom is exercised when a couple >chooses to have or not have sexual intercourse (birth control aside). Certainly This assumes all birth control is 100% effective? Geez, another one from the "teach the little bitch a lesson camp". >it is your body and your choice, but your choice should be exercised before the >child is conceived, not after. We are all able to choose our actions, but not >the consequences of our actions. > >Suppose we say abortions are moral. Suppose we allow abortions for convenience. >"It's too inconvenient for me to be pregnant right now, I think I'll have an >abortion." I see no vast difference between that and "It's too inconvenient >for me to have children right now, I think I'll terminate my 2 year old." You >may argue that the 2 year old is a person and the fetus is not (which in my >opinion is mere semantic drivel), but certainly they are both alive. Finally some sense, it is YOUR OPINION. Not semantic drivel, just drivel. I see no vast difference in a fetus or a two year old either. One is inside of, or part of the mother, the other separately viable. One is dependant solely on the mother, the other is not. Concerns affecting the 2 year old do not physically affect the mother. The mother is solely responsible for that fetus for everything, accept, of course, is she doesn't want it. > >The major issue here is "at what stage does a human life aquire the right to >remain alive?" Under what conditions does one's right to life supercede the I would say at the point it can survive on its own. And it is not "ones" right to life, since there are probably not a lot of fetuses reading the net. How about a fetuses right to life. >convenience of another? I don't recall the Bill of Rights mentioning anywhere >a "right to a convenient life". I do recall a right to "life, liberty and the >pursuit of happiness". > >Immediately following conception, a child is not capable of sustaining its own >life independently, but then neither are infants or young children. The >difference is only one of degree. This is also what I have been trying to tell you. The degree you speak of is that following conception only the mother can care for the fetus, after birth, probably 90% of the adults in this world can sustain a childs life. dave >-- >Doug Pase -- ...ucbvax!tektronix!ogcvax!pase or pase@Oregon-Grad