regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (04/19/85)
Re Paul Debuc's >A response to Madelyn T. Gould: >You're making a lot of assumptions here. Even if they were valid >assumptions I don't think they would justify abortion. Paul, do any of the assumptions matter? Isn't the fact that she has positively, determinedly, rationally decided NOT to have children enough? What if there was absolutely NOTHING wrong with her? But she simply, clearly, specifically ruled out that possibility in her life, took all adequate steps, legally and morally, against the eventuality, and still ended up pregnant? This isn't an issue of _convenience_ pro-lifer's like to flame against. This isn't an issue of _sloth_ on the part of the woman involved. This isn't even an issue of _responsibility_ since the woman in question has taken every avenue POSSIBLE to avoid pregnancy (short of refusing her husband his conjugal rights, which action would surface a whole nother issue). (moral issues and religious issues, too, remember). Oh, I get it. Sex is ONLY for procreation, right? Act of God, even for the atheists, right? No one has free will to choose a course for their life, right? Especially if they disagree with you, right? Is the rest of your argument really "everybody has to have kids" rather than "abortion itself is wrong"? Or "nobody get's any choice in this world"? Deep down in the heart of it, what are you proselytizing for? For you, Paul, I'd be interested to hear whether you think abortion may be justified in cases of rape/incest, and/or when the mother's life would be endangered. Is there _any_ time abortion is right? Mail or post, as you prefer. I'd be interested in hearing what the other pro-lifers have to say to Madelyn's question, too. It's a revealing one. Bravo. P.S., Paul, no flame intended. I'm _appalled_ by your argument, but I'm willing to listen to clarification.
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (04/22/85)
From Adrienne Regard: (Note: Articles being discussed here were originally titled, "One person's view".) >Re Paul Debuc's >A response to Madelyn T. Gould: That's "Dubuc". >>You're making a lot of assumptions here. Even if they were valid >>assumptions I don't think they would justify abortion. > >Paul, do any of the assumptions matter? Isn't the fact that she has >positively, determinedly, rationally decided NOT to have children enough? >What if there was absolutely NOTHING wrong with her? But she simply, >clearly, specifically ruled out that possibility in her life, took all >adequate steps, legally and morally, against the eventuality, and still >ended up pregnant? The assumptions seemed to matter to Madelyn. >This isn't an issue of _convenience_ pro-lifer's like to flame against. >This isn't an issue of _sloth_ on the part of the woman involved. This >isn't even an issue of _responsibility_ since the woman in question has >taken every avenue POSSIBLE to avoid pregnancy (short of refusing her >husband his conjugal rights, which action would surface a whole nother >issue). (moral issues and religious issues, too, remember). Yes, I believe it is an issue of _responsibility_, for both husband and wife. If the husband wants his "conjugal rights" he ought to share in the conjugal responsibilities. Besides, do you think women only have sex with their husbands in order not to deny them their conjugal rights? I thought the women got something out of it too. >Oh, I get it. Sex is ONLY for procreation, right? Act of God, even for >the atheists, right? No one has free will to choose a course for their >life, right? Especially if they disagree with you, right? No, you don't get it. I agree that sex is not ONLY for procreation. But are you going to maintain that it has NOTHING to do with procreation? The argument being presented here seems to imply that. Having sex *is* how pregnancy ocurrs most naturally. People who engage in that ought to be aware of this as a possibility and take it into account. Of course I believe in free will and freedom to choose; and that includes sexual behaviour. You seem to treat sex as an activity that it beyond the realm of individual choice. I believe that people generally *choose* of have sex. If they will not accept the possibility of pregnancy that goes along with their choice, I think they are being irresponsible. >Is the rest of your argument really "everybody has to have kids" rather >than "abortion itself is wrong"? Or "nobody get's any choice in this >world"? Deep down in the heart of it, what are you proselytizing for? Is your argument really "everybody has to have sex so it is unfair to say that people must be responsible if their having sex results in pregnancy"? No, I think you know better. So why don't you give me a little credit and not imply that I hold such ridiculous beliefs? >For you, Paul, I'd be interested to hear whether you think abortion may >be justified in cases of rape/incest, and/or when the mother's life would >be endangered. Is there _any_ time abortion is right? Mail or post, as >you prefer. But this isn't what we're discussing here is it? You're new to this group or you would know where I stand here. I've discussed my position openly in the past. But in the context of this discussion it is avoiding the issue and my position is irrelevant to the argument here. With regard to this discussion, does it make any difference what I believe about these cases? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (04/23/85)
> This isn't an issue of _convenience_ pro-lifer's like to flame against. > This isn't an issue of _sloth_ on the part of the woman involved. This > isn't even an issue of _responsibility_ since the woman in question has > taken every avenue POSSIBLE to avoid pregnancy (short of refusing her > husband his conjugal rights, which action would surface a whole nother > issue). (moral issues and religious issues, too, remember). This very much IS a matter of responsibility. If you go out and get in an auto accident, even though you took every avenue POSSIBLE to avoid one (short of not driving), you don't have the right simply to walk away in the case that another person is involved. One of the consequences of making the CHOICE to drive is that you might cause an auto accident, despite your best intentions, and be required to take RESPONSIBILITY for it. One of the consequences of making the CHOICE to have sex is that you might cause a pregnancy, despite your best intentions. It should not be legal to avoid responsibility for this CHOICE by killing the baby, who had absolutely no say in the matter. > Oh, I get it. Sex is ONLY for procreation, right? Act of God, even for > the atheists, right? No one has free will to choose a course for their > life, right? Especially if they disagree with you right? By the same logic, society is oppressing your "free will" by insisting that you take responsibility for anyone that you might injure when driving. CHOICES and CONSEQUENCES go hand-in-hand. The reason that abortion should be illegal is that it forces someone else (the baby) to give up their most fundamental right (the right to life) so that you might avoid the CONSEQUENCES of your CHOICE. If you can come up with a birth-control method that (a) is 100% effective, and (b) doesn't involve violating the rights of babies, go right ahead. Or if you can come up with a life-support system that allows babies to spend their "pre- birth" months in an incubator, do so. -- Thomas Newton Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (04/23/85)
Paul Dubuc says: > Of course I believe in free will and freedom to choose; and that includes > sexual behaviour. You seem to treat sex as an activity that it beyond > the realm of individual choice. I believe that people generally *choose* > of have sex. If they will not accept the possibility of pregnancy that > goes along with their choice, I think they are being irresponsible. Whenever I travel somewhere by car, I take on the risk that I might be involved in an automobile accident. Are you seriously suggesting that if I am injured in a crash, it would be evading my responsibilities if I were to seek medical treatment?
egs@epsilon.UUCP (Ed Sheppard) (04/23/85)
Andrew, you say > Whenever I travel somewhere by car, I take on the risk that I > might be involved in an automobile accident. Are you seriously > suggesting that if I am injured in a crash, it would be evading > my responsibilities if I were to seek medical treatment? Let's try sticking "driving a car" into Paul's paragraph and see if what you say above follows. > Paul Dubuc says: > > Of course I believe in free will and freedom to choose; and that includes > [driving a car]. You seem to treat [driving] as an activity that it beyond > the realm of individual choice. I believe that people generally *choose* > [to drive a car]. If they will not accept the possibility of [an > accident] that goes along with their choice, I think they are being > irresponsible. Sorry, I don't see that the logical implication of Paul's article is that not seeking medical attention after an accident is irresponsible. About the only relationship I can see is that "birth control" is somewhat equivalent to "wearing a seatbelt". Perhaps what we need is some kind of "birth insurance" to complete the analogy? Ed Sheppard Bellcore
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (04/23/85)
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.
egs@epsilon.UUCP (Ed Sheppard) (04/24/85)
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. 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. 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? 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
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (04/24/85)
Ed Shepard says: > 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. > To sum up: yeah, we all take risks and make mistakes, but how far > should you be allowed to go in righting them? Yes, that is the question. My point is that some people do not agree that that is the question. For example, I am certain that there are some people who would argue that even if it were possible to terminate a pregnancy with no harm to the fetus (say, for instance, by transplanting it to a hydroponic embryo farm), that doing so would be immoral because it would be evading the responsibility that goes along with sex. I was addressing that argument and that one only. Now, back to the main question, which is already in progress. The main question is: Is abortion morally permissible, in and of itself? I intend eventually to summarize all the arguments I have heard on that question and post them, but not tonight. If you have read my previous postings, you know some of my views already.
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (04/24/85)
> By the same logic, society is oppressing your "free will" by insisting that you > take responsibility for anyone that you might injure when driving. CHOICES and > CONSEQUENCES go hand-in-hand. The reason that abortion should be illegal is > that it forces someone else (the baby) to give up their most fundamental right > (the right to life) so that you might avoid the CONSEQUENCES of your CHOICE. This type of argument is sometimes called "assuming what you wish to prove." Either a fetus is a human being or not. Either way, the above argument is irrelevant.
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (04/24/85)
>No, you don't get it. I agree that sex is not ONLY for procreation. >But are you going to maintain that it has NOTHING to do with procreation? >The argument being presented here seems to imply that. Having sex *is* >how pregnancy ocurrs most naturally. People who engage in that ought >to be aware of this as a possibility and take it into account. [Dubuc] I wholeheartedly agree with this one. It's important to note the phrase 'ought to be aware'. >Of course I believe in free will and freedom to choose; and that includes >sexual behaviour. You seem to treat sex as an activity that it beyond >the realm of individual choice. I believe that people generally *choose* >of have sex. If they will not accept the possibility of pregnancy that >goes along with their choice, I think they are being irresponsible. Again, they must know of the consequences of their choice. To me, this means sex education. >Is your argument really "everybody has to have sex so it is unfair to >say that people must be responsible if their having sex results in >pregnancy"? No, I think you know better. So why don't you give me >a little credit and not imply that I hold such ridiculous beliefs? I wouldn't assume that all people who want to have sex are inherently responsible though. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (04/24/85)
>>Re Paul Debuc's >A response to Madelyn T. Gould: >That's "Dubuc". Got it, sorry. (incidentally, that's B. Adrienne Regard, but I don't worry about it much.) (-: >>This >>isn't even an issue of _responsibility_ since the woman in question has >>taken every avenue POSSIBLE to avoid pregnancy (short of refusing her >>husband his conjugal rights. . . >Yes, I believe it is an issue of _responsibility_, for both husband >and wife. If the husband wants his "conjugal rights" he ought to share >in the conjugal responsibilities. Besides, do you think women only >have sex with their husbands in order not to deny them their conjugal >rights? I thought the women got something out of it too. >>Oh, I get it. Sex is ONLY for procreation, right? Act of God, even for >>the atheists, right? No one has free will to choose a course for their >>life, right? Especially if they disagree with you, right? >No, you don't get it. I agree that sex is not ONLY for procreation. >But are you going to maintain that it has NOTHING to do with procreation? >The argument being presented here seems to imply that. Having sex *is* >how pregnancy ocurrs most naturally. People who engage in that ought >to be aware of this as a possibility and take it into account. This argument got me thinking. My slant on the subject has been "NOW that we are _able_ to control the likelihood of pregnancy. . ." etc., when in fact, we aren't able to control any such thing with certainty. In the case Madelyn cited, we really are talking about abortion as a last-ditch form of birth control. I don't personally agree with abortion as a method of birth control, but I've also never had occasion to have to deal with it as such, since other methods have proved reliable. What does that mean? I'm afraid I still don't think that my experience should become the template for all behaviours. I still think the option should be available to women whose experience differs from mine, since they are the ones who have to choose. >Of course I believe in free will and freedom to choose; and that includes >sexual behaviour. You seem to treat sex as an activity that it beyond >the realm of individual choice. Ah, come on, no, I don't. You just had lots of fun making remarks about women having/not having free will on the subject in response to my original sarcasm. >I believe that people generally *choose* >of have sex. If they will not accept the possibility of pregnancy that >goes along with their choice, I think they are being irresponsible. We agree. But what action follows from that sense of responsibility? >>Is the rest of your argument really "everybody has to have kids" rather >>than "abortion itself is wrong"? Or "nobody get's any choice in this >>world"? Deep down in the heart of it, what are you proselytizing for? >Is your argument really "everybody has to have sex so it is unfair to >say that people must be responsible if their having sex results in >pregnancy"? No, I think you know better. So why don't you give me >a little credit and not imply that I hold such ridiculous beliefs? No, but my argument _might_ be that women and women alone have kids. The current state of our society shows a greater and greater number of women with children sinking below the poverty line, and this is WITH abortion available. The society no longer has the strong legal, moral, ethical bonds that tie fathers to the children for the 18 some odd years. The society still places the burden of "parenting" on the mother. My argument _might_ be that people should be allowed to choose how to act in the light of their accepted responsibility in a legal, safe manner that has nothing to do with anybody else's morality. But those are part of some much larger problems, and really doesn't weigh on the abortion issue except as a by- product. The questions we are skirting are (1) when do "human rights" begin, (2) if rights are in conflict, which rights take precident and who bears responsibility and (3) prior to that time, who has the right to choose? I'll tell you this, I was immeasurably shocked by your response to Madelyn, but I probably should apologize for attributing ridiculous beliefs to you. I'll try to avoid it in future. >>For you, Paul, I'd be interested to hear whether you think abortion may >>be justified in cases of rape/incest, and/or when the mother's life would >>be endangered. Is there _any_ time abortion is right? Mail or post, as >>you prefer. >But this isn't what we're discussing here is it? You're new to this >group or you would know where I stand here. I've discussed my position >openly in the past. But in the context of this discussion it is avoiding >the issue and my position is irrelevant to the argument here. With regard >to this discussion, does it make any difference what I believe about these >cases? No, those questions were my questions. My first posting was early February. I've been reading since approx. 3 weeks earlier. I don't know if that makes me new or not. I've seen previous postings that I can remember your name on, but I can't say that I saved them. If you have a brief copy you wouldn't object to mailing, I'd appreciate receiving it. If not, well. . . And yes, I do think that the question "Is there any time abortion is right?" is an important question to this argument. That may well be exactly what we are discussing here.
tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (04/25/85)
> Whenever I travel somewhere by car, I take on the risk that I > might be involved in an automobile accident. Are you seriously > suggesting that if I am injured in a crash, it would be evading > my responsibilities if I were to seek medical treatment? Seeking medical treatment for an auto accident does not involve violating someone else's rights. Abortion involves the killing of a baby. It's not seeking to minimize bad consequences in itself that is wrong. It's saying that "I will minimize the consequences to myself even if I need to violate someone else's rights to do so." -- Thomas Newton Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (04/26/85)
(Response to Keith Doyle) >>Is your argument really "everybody has to have sex so it is unfair to >>say that people must be responsible if their having sex results in >>pregnancy"? No, I think you know better. So why don't you give me >>a little credit and not imply that I hold such ridiculous beliefs? >I wouldn't assume that all people who want to have sex are inherently >responsible though. I don't. Neither would I assume that an irresponsibly caused pregnancy inherently justifies its termination (i.e. abortion). -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (04/26/85)
> Andrew, you say > > > Whenever I travel somewhere by car, I take on the risk that I > > might be involved in an automobile accident. Are you seriously > > suggesting that if I am injured in a crash, it would be evading > > my responsibilities if I were to seek medical treatment? > > Let's try sticking "driving a car" into Paul's paragraph and see > if what you say above follows. > > > Paul Dubuc says: > > > > Of course I believe in free will and freedom to choose; and that includes > > [driving a car]. You seem to treat [driving] as an activity that it beyond > > the realm of individual choice. I believe that people generally *choose* > > [to drive a car]. If they will not accept the possibility of [an > > accident] that goes along with their choice, I think they are being > > irresponsible. > > Sorry, I don't see that the logical implication of Paul's article > is that not seeking medical attention after an accident is irresponsible. > About the only relationship I can see is that "birth control" is > somewhat equivalent to "wearing a seatbelt". Perhaps what we need is > some kind of "birth insurance" to complete the analogy? > > Ed Sheppard > Bellcore You guys are all nuts!!! Trying to compare unwanted pregnancies with car accidents is absolutely ridiculous!! -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (04/26/85)
Another response to Adrienne Regard: }>No, you don't get it. I agree that sex is not ONLY for procreation. }>But are you going to maintain that it has NOTHING to do with procreation? }>The argument being presented here seems to imply that. Having sex *is* }>how pregnancy occurs most naturally. People who engage in that ought }>to be aware of this as a possibility and take it into account. } }This argument got me thinking. My slant on the subject has been "NOW that }we are _able_ to control the likelihood of pregnancy. . ." etc., when in }fact, we aren't able to control any such thing with certainty. In the case }Madelyn cited, we really are talking about abortion as a last-ditch form of }birth control. I don't personally agree with abortion as a method of birth }control, but I've also never had occasion to have to deal with it as such, }since other methods have proved reliable. What does that mean? I'm }afraid I still don't think that my experience should become the template for }all behaviours. I still think the option should be available to women whose }experience differs from mine, since they are the ones who have to choose. I wasn't arguing that anyone's experience should become the template for all behaviour. Our choices are always limited by certain factors. I think that ending the life of another (the pre-born child in this case) is one of those. I don't think it makes sense to argue that a certain option should be available to others just because their experience may be different than yours. You have to take into consideration what the option *is*. }>I believe that people generally *choose* }>of have sex. If they will not accept the possibility of pregnancy that }>goes along with their choice, I think they are being irresponsible. } }We agree. But what action follows from that sense of responsibility? The fetus is an innocent party to the choice that was made. She shouldn't have to die because of that choice. }>>Is the rest of your argument really "everybody has to have kids" rather }>>than "abortion itself is wrong"? Or "nobody get's any choice in this }>>world"? Deep down in the heart of it, what are you proselytizing for? } }>Is your argument really "everybody has to have sex so it is unfair to }>say that people must be responsible if their having sex results in }>pregnancy"? No, I think you know better. So why don't you give me }>a little credit and not imply that I hold such ridiculous beliefs? } }No, but my argument _might_ be that women and women alone have kids. Gosh! I hope not. I hope I had *something* to do with my daughter's being here. }The current state of our society shows a greater and greater number of women }with children sinking below the poverty line, and this is WITH abortion }available. The society no longer has the strong legal, moral, ethical }bonds that tie fathers to the children for the 18 some odd years. The }society still places the burden of "parenting" on the mother. My argument }_might_ be that people should be allowed to choose how to act in the light }of their accepted responsibility in a legal, safe manner that has nothing }to do with anybody else's morality. But those are part of some much larger }problems, and really doesn't weigh on the abortion issue except as a by- }product. I would venture to say that the availability of abortion might have contributed a good deal to this situation. Instead of balancing the inequity by holding men more responsible for the children they help conceive, pro-choice folks fought for the right to abortion to make women more independent. (The right to "control their bodies" and all that). This new independence places all the burden of child bearing on the women. It also lets men be irresponsible. If a woman gets pregnant, the man could feel more justified in leaving her on her own, since she can get an abortion. Abortion has helped insure that more of the burden of parenting is placed on the mother. }The questions we are skirting are (1) when do "human rights" begin, I have yet to see the pro-choice camp come up with consistent criteria for this. (i.e. criteria that don't also exclude the rights of humans we do want to protect.) }(2) if rights are in conflict, which rights take precident and who bears }responsibility and Who's right to *what* takes precedent, you mean (I hope). It certainly isn't true that *any* rights one individual has can take precedence over *all* of the rights of another. }(3) prior to that time, who has the right to choose? Prior to what time? Choose what? Yes, I agree we're skirting these issues. They've been skirted since *Row vs Wade*. }I'll tell you this, I was immeasurably shocked by your response to Madelyn, }but I probably should apologize for attributing ridiculous beliefs to you. }I'll try to avoid it in future. Thanks. Apology accepted. I have a hard time avoiding stuff like that myself (and I've had more practice than you.) }>>For you, Paul, I'd be interested to hear whether you think abortion may }>>be justified in cases of rape/incest, and/or when the mother's life would }>>be endangered. Is there _any_ time abortion is right? Mail or post, as }>>you prefer. } }>But this isn't what we're discussing here is it? You're new to this }>group or you would know where I stand here. I've discussed my position }>openly in the past. But in the context of this discussion it is avoiding }>the issue and my position is irrelevant to the argument here. With regard }>to this discussion, does it make any difference what I believe about these }>cases? } }No, those questions were my questions. My first posting was early February. }I've been reading since approx. 3 weeks earlier. I don't know if that makes }me new or not. I've seen previous postings that I can remember your name }on, but I can't say that I saved them. If you have a brief copy you wouldn't }object to mailing, I'd appreciate receiving it. If not, well. . . I've been on the net about 3 years. Net.abortion is about 1.5 years old, I think. I may have some detailed articles saved somewhere on these cases. For your information (and not for the sake of argument), I'll give you a summary: Rape and incest: Personally, I don't think abortion in these cases is justified. These cases are packed with more emotional content than elective abortions, but I don't see any added *reasoning* that makes abortion right in these cases as opposed to "chosen abortions". Believe me, I've written hundreds of lines of argument to support this position. But, legally speaking, I would allow a compromise which allowed abortion in these cases since, 1) beside being against abortion, I am also against rape and incest. (I hope nobody is surprised.) 2) Demanding that abortion be outlawed for these cases at this point would get us nowhere at all and leave the 90+% aborted for other reasons out in the cold. I would not accept the compromise if the necessary condition would be that the compromise would have to be the last word on the subject (I don't see that as the purpose of compromise). Compromising for the purpose of not having to deal with the issue any more is not acceptable--no matter what the issue is, or what the compromise entails. Mother's life endangered: Yes, I think abortion is acceptable in cases like this. The important thing is that we have a consistent attitude toward the value of all human individuals. That attitude would hope to save *both* mother and child. May I point out that even Catholic hospitals do abortions when the mother will die otherwise. In these cases, however, there is much sincere grief on the part of the hospital staff. They have lost a patient. It is a real tragedy. In contrast, abortion clinics only recognize *one* life as having any value (in many cases it is even questionable whether they value even that one as much). The other is unceremoniously tossed into a bucket or sucked into a jar; the whole object of the operation having been to expire it. There is a vast difference between the two mentalities displayed here, and I think they have equally differing implications for how we value human life in society as a whole. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd