saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (02/16/84)
Ok, folks, I know that this topic is a no-no. I have heard that it's been debated to death. This was before my time. I never got to read any of the debate, and I would be interested in having a discussion on it. I am willing to take this topic off the net if there is too much screaming about it; I would continue the discussion via mail. In the meantime, I would like to reach a certain group of people; this group will be easily identifiable by their responses to the following question; For each category of women listed underneath, which of them should be allowed to have an abortion if they so desire: 1 - Women who get pregnant as a result of not using birth control. 2 - Women who get pregnant as a result of a birth control failure (failure of the mmethod, not of the couple using it) 3 - Women who get pregnant as a result of rape. 4 - Women who get pregnant because they want to have a child, but change their mind once they are pregnant. My aim is to convince people that they should either answer "yes" to all questions or "no" to all of them. Therefore I would like to hear from those who have answered yes to some and no to others. I want to hear some justifications of those answers. I think a lot of people will see what I've got in mind with those questions. For those who don't, I'm not telling yet, because I will probably get a more sincere answer this way. Sophie Quigley watmath!saquigley
tomj@dartvax.UUCP (Thomas Johnston) (02/17/84)
- While this is not my opinion, Kantian ethics would dictate that no
one should be allowed to have an abortion:
~x(1) -> ~Ex(n)
If there is one woman who should not have an
abortion, then no women should have abortions.
Many people are not so absolute, saying that abortion should be
allowed for victims of rape and incest, for example, or if a birth
would endanger the life of the mother.
My own opinion is that as society, through the courts, has thrown
out bill after bill dealing with morality (blue laws overturned, sex
between consenting adults is legal), legislation on abortion is nearly
impossible, as it will automatically impinge on the rights of the
parents and of the unborn child. I am aware that I assume unborn
child to have rights.
Tom Johnston
linus!dartvax!tomjted@teldata.UUCP (02/17/84)
******* This answer is from a male so "n" it if you want. I am married with 3 planned children. My answers: 1. No. Using abortion for birth control is irresponsible and is one of the situations in which I would agree with the anti-abortion people that abortion is murder. 2. No. Except when the mothers life or health is in danger. The criteria should be a little more liberal than they were 20 years ago or the penalties for performing or having an abortion should be less severe. 3. Yes. This falls in the category of endangering the mothers mental health. Rape is a severe enough trauma that the victim does not need a constant reminder. 4. No. Same as #1, although there might be some extreme occurance that would put the mothers health in danger. Destroying a human life is a serious act not to be taken lightly. Not too many years ago some womens lives where destroyed by being forced to bear and rear children they didn't want. To be a just society we must weigh the injustice of killing a fetus against the injustice to an unwilling mother. My answers are based on the concept that irresponsible people should bear the consequences of their irresponsibility and victims should not be further victimized. I also beleive a women has the right to decide what to do with her body. How is that for inconsistency, I agree with both sides of the issue. Come to think of it the issue is issue. You omitted a category. What about the cases where the fetus is known to be abnormal such as Down's Syndrome or other cases that can be detected prior to birth? This is most difficult of all to decide. My answer to this one is to judge them on an individual basis.
preece@uicsl.UUCP (02/25/84)
#R:watmath:-690400:uicsl:16400044:000:885 uicsl!preece Feb 24 23:16:00 1984 My position is relatively simple: Every person should have an unrestricted right to determine what goes on within his or her body. I believe that's the basis of the privacy argument in the Supreme Court's view, as well. Just as no agency can compel me to donate a kidney to a needy person, no agency should be able to compel a woman to lend her uterus to a fetus, WHETHER OR NOT that fetus is considered a human being. The one restriction I could accept is a provision that after reasonable viability the removal of the fetus be carried out in a way that would not damage it (the Merchant of Venice clause). Before viability I see a qualitative difference between the fetus and a person. Frankly, I'd like to see a really good (reliable, no side effects) abortifacient that would induce expulsion of the fetus without otherwise harming it. scott preece ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece
jrt@hou5g.UUCP (Jaime Tormos) (02/28/84)
A response to scott preece.....Yes I agree with you that everyone should have absolute control over what happens to their body, or what is in it. I disagree with you however on WHEN. If someone doesn't want to get pregnant, then a "NO" would be very appropriate BEFORE the pregnancy occured. If they wait until AFTER the have allowed the pregnancy, then they have relinquished their 'RIGHT' to control their own body, as they have agreed to share it with someone else. (** FRODO *) alias hou5g!jrt
pc@hplabsb.UUCP (Patricia Collins) (02/29/84)
"frodo" (?) This shouldn't need to be pointed out, but... (1) What planet do you live on that women who say "no" are never raped? (2) Why is it not that if a MAN doesn't want to be a father, it is HIS responsibility to say "no" ??? (3) When a woman says "no" by using a "safe" method of birth control and her partner says "no" by taking an active role in that birth control (reminders about pills, "preparing" diaphragms, using condoms, etc.), and some little sperm beats the odds, the woman is just saying "no" again when she chooses to flush that sperm (and its mate, the egg) out of her body. Patricia hplabs!pc
preece@uicsl.UUCP (03/02/84)
#R:watmath:-690400:uicsl:16400049:000:723 uicsl!preece Mar 1 20:39:00 1984 I can't agree that sexual activity implies consent to pregnancy. The individual may, in fact, have made a good faith effort to avoid pregnancy or, to use the hoariest example, been an unwilling participant in the act. The three-year old baby is also the result of the same degree of consent and still has no legal right to the use of its mother's body. If you say a fetus has a right to use its mother's womb because death is the only other outcome you must also say that the three year old with incurable kidney disease and no other viable donor has that same right to one of its mother's kidneys. No court has accepted such an argument. One's body must be absolutely one's own. scott preece ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece
jrt@hou5g.UUCP (Jaime Tormos) (03/06/84)
Patricia, Please do not take me out of context, and PLEASE don't put words in my mouth. My article was a statement against women using abortion as a means of birth control. I advocate using nicer means earlier...before the woman becomes pregnant. (1) What planet...women who say "no" never are raped ? You obviously don't follow the net very often, my position on that subject was a long drawn out battle with many, including the infamous scott preece. I think what you are trying to say is that "rape is a valid reason for abortion" and I agree that rape and the trauma that follows is a factor that has to be considered by the victim. However, I think the Catholic church's position on this is quite appropriate. To the best of my memory, and paraphrasing slightly,... If in your home, an attacker forcibly enters against your will, then you have every right in the world to have that attacker removed by the police. If however, you do nothing, and allow this intruder to remain, and some time later on this intruder causes mischief and misfortune, then because of your "implied consent" at allowing the intruder to remain, you have given up a number of your rights and have limited the recourses you have available to you. Likewise, If a woman is raped, then she has every right as soon as possible, to go to the hospital and have the 'uninvited intruders' removed from her body. One of the key words is 'as soon as possible'. If the victim does nothing, thinking that "no, I won't become pregnant", and then becomes pregnant (read your health manuals, this process is not instantaneous), then she has therefore given up some of her 'rights' to that new child. NOTE: I do not want to argue technicalities... or 'what if's, 'how about's, or 'have you considered's. Rape and its consequences and aftermaths is not a cleary defined issue. The idea is to follow the spirit of what I have said, not the letter. (2) Why is it not that if a man ...his responsibility... Again, you put words in my mouth that not only I didn't state, but I personnaly disagree with. In other words I agree with you 1000%. It is very much as much the man's responsibility, as the woman's. They are partners in an act that has a potential for clearly defined consequences. They must both be 'adult' enough to take on not only the 'rights', but the responsibilities. However, I wish to carry it a little farther. Why is it that even though a child is created from a union of two people, some people feel that only the woman has the "right" to decide that their child should be killed. Why is it that in a lot of states, the father does not even have to be informed that an abortion is requested/carried out, etc. If only one needs to decide, why not carry it a little farther, and allow the father a choice in the decision as to whether a child shall live or not. (3) When a woman says "no"...and some little sperm beats the odds...then abortion is just saying "no" again by flushing the baby out of her body. Hmmm, a "grey area", a potential good point. The flaw lies however in the acceptance of the "odds". If you do not want a child, then you KNOW what works. If you decide to "take your chances" on a less effective means of birth control, then you must also be responsible enough to accept the consequences and take on the reponsibilities associated with them. If you do not "want" the child, give it up for adoption. If you cannot "afford" it, then seek out Birthright or any number of similar groups that will assist, support and help in any way they can. with Love, (** FRODO **) alias hou5g!jrt