emh@bonnie.UUCP (Edward M. Hummel) (12/16/84)
<> >A person's claim to rights, however, is valid if and >only if that person has not violated the rights of another. It does >not matter whether the fetus was invited into the woman's body; it >has no right to remain after her consent to its presence ends. Thus >the fetus, not its mother, is the violator of the rights of another >in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. Does this necessarily imply that that mother has the "right" to kill the fetus? ... >So a pregnant woman is, in principle, the same as a criminal, since >her rights are to be restricted to prevent her from "harming others"? >The criminal is being restricted from doing harm. The mother is being >required to render aid to a parasite within her body, which she would >prefer to have removed. Maybe the mother is a criminal, in a sense. At the time of conception she committed the "grave" offense of engaging in sexual intercourse without being prepared and committed to accept the possible consequences (pregnancy). >The fetus has no contractual claim on the woman's body, thus no >right to her resources. If you can require people to meet >obligations which they did not undertake by entering into contracts, >then you can require anything of anyone -- you have demolished the >standard of proper requirement (*voluntary* consent). Excepting rape, voluntary consent has been acquired. Changing one's mind later or admitting that the consequences had not been considered beforehand is similar to the excuses that hit-and-run drivers use. ... >Nor did the fetus get there *entirely* by the woman's volition. >(I won't re-hash contraceptive failures, etc.) Contraceptive failures don't dismiss responsibility. Both men and women should understand the risks in using contraceptives and be prepared to accept the results of failure. People who don't know what are the consequences of sexual intercourse, shouldn't do it. (find the catch-22) >Ken Montgomery Ed Hummel
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (12/18/84)
[] >> me > Ed Hummel >>A person's claim to rights, however, is valid if and >>only if that person has not violated the rights of another. It does >>not matter whether the fetus was invited into the woman's body; it >>has no right to remain after her consent to its presence ends. Thus >>the fetus, not its mother, is the violator of the rights of another >>in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. > Does this necessarily imply that that mother has the >"right" to kill the fetus? The mother has the right to remove the fetus from her property whenever she wants. Current technology is such that lethal force is required; if you don't like this, improve the technology. > ... > Maybe the mother is a criminal, in a sense. At the time of >conception she committed the "grave" offense of engaging in sexual >intercourse without being prepared and committed to accept the possible >consequences (pregnancy). Are you "prepared and commited to accept the possible consequences" of driving? Won't you seek medical aid if you have a car accident? >>The fetus has no contractual claim on the woman's body, thus no >>right to her resources. If you can require people to meet >>obligations which they did not undertake by entering into contracts, >>then you can require anything of anyone -- you have demolished the >>standard of proper requirement (*voluntary* consent). > Excepting rape, voluntary consent has been acquired. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. The woman has consented to the momentary presence of a man, *not* to presence of a child. >Changing one's mind later or admitting that the consequences had >not been considered beforehand is similar to the excuses that >hit-and-run drivers use. Really? Would you quote some hit-and-run drivers so that the rest of us can judge for ourselves? BTW, failing to consider possible consequences is not the same as consenting to them. >... > >>Nor did the fetus get there *entirely* by the woman's volition. >>(I won't re-hash contraceptive failures, etc.) > Contraceptive failures don't dismiss responsibility. >Both men and women should understand the risks in using contraceptives >and be prepared to accept the results of failure. Why is carrying the child to term the only responsible way to handle accidental pregnancy? In other words, why is abortion irresponsible? Why should people "accept the results" of accidents? > People who don't >know what are the consequences of sexual intercourse, shouldn't do it. Are you a great sex educator? Or are people just "supposed to know"? -- "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" Ken Montgomery ...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]
emh@bonnie.UUCP (Edward M. Hummel) (12/21/84)
<> >>>A person's claim to rights, however, is valid if and >>>only if that person has not violated the rights of another. It does >>>not matter whether the fetus was invited into the woman's body; it >>>has no right to remain after her consent to its presence ends. Thus >>>the fetus, not its mother, is the violator of the rights of another >>>in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. >> Does this necessarily imply that that mother has the >>"right" to kill the fetus? >The mother has the right to remove the fetus from her property >whenever she wants. A fundamental point of disagreement! The arguments on both sides of this one have been bantered to death, and I am not clever enough to add anything new. Are there irreconcilable differences of opinion about what rights mothers have over the rights or lives of fetuses? Perhaps. > Current technology is such that lethal force >is required; if you don't like this, improve the technology. Even though I do like it, I am trying to improve the technology. >> Maybe the mother is a criminal, in a sense. At the time of >>conception she committed the "grave" offense of engaging in sexual >>intercourse without being prepared and committed to accept the possible >>consequences (pregnancy). >Are you "prepared and commited to accept the possible consequences" >of driving? Won't you seek medical aid if you have a car accident? Yes. Yes, if injured. >>>The fetus has no contractual claim on the woman's body, thus no >>>right to her resources. If you can require people to meet >>>obligations which they did not undertake by entering into contracts, >>>then you can require anything of anyone -- you have demolished the >>>standard of proper requirement (*voluntary* consent). >> Excepting rape, voluntary consent has been acquired. >Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. The woman has consented >to the momentary presence of a man, *not* to presence of a child. The crucial point. Both men and women should realize that consent to have sex is consent to possible pregnancy. >>Changing one's mind later or admitting that the consequences had >>not been considered beforehand is similar to the excuses that >>hit-and-run drivers use. >Really? Would you quote some hit-and-run drivers so that the rest >of us can judge for ourselves? BTW, failing to consider possible >consequences is not the same as consenting to them. "It was an accident. I got scared and panicked." "Aw, c'mon. There was only a little damage. I didn't mean it. I'll never let it happen again." I agree that failure to consider consequences is not the same as consenting, but failure to consider the consequences should not be considered a legitimate excuse. >>>Nor did the fetus get there *entirely* by the woman's volition. >>>(I won't re-hash contraceptive failures, etc.) >> Contraceptive failures don't dismiss responsibility. >>Both men and women should understand the risks in using contraceptives >>and be prepared to accept the results of failure. >Why is carrying the child to term the only responsible way to handle >accidental pregnancy? In other words, why is abortion irresponsible? >Why should people "accept the results" of accidents? Another fundamental point of disagreement. Based on moral, humanitarian, ethical, religious, historical (or any combination thereof) principles abortion is irresponsible. Again, this has been often discussed in this group. >>People who don't know the consequences of sexual intercourse, shouldn't do it. >Are you a great sex educator? Or are people just "supposed to know"? Irrelevent. Yes! Proper sex education should be the norm, and not the exception. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >"Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" >Ken Montgomery Ed Hummel "A hapless smurf"
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (01/02/85)
[] > bonnie!emh (Edward M. Hummel) > > ... >>> Maybe the mother is a criminal, in a sense. At the time of >>>conception she committed the "grave" offense of engaging in sexual >>>intercourse without being prepared and committed to accept the possible >>>consequences (pregnancy). >>Are you "prepared and commited to accept the possible consequences" >>of driving? Won't you seek medical aid if you have a car accident? > >Yes. Yes, if injured. Then don't you think it inconsistent to deny medical aid of abortion to a woman who has become pregnant accidentally? Is it really consistent to deny her the possibility of recovering from that accident quickly? > ... >>> Excepting rape, voluntary consent has been acquired. >>Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. The woman has consented >>to the momentary presence of a man, *not* to presence of a child. > >The crucial point. Both men and women should realize that consent to >have sex is consent to possible pregnancy. Nobody should "realize" anything that is false. > ... >>Why is carrying the child to term the only responsible way to handle >>accidental pregnancy? In other words, why is abortion irresponsible? >>Why should people "accept the results" of accidents? > > Another fundamental point of disagreement. Based on moral, >humanitarian, ethical, religious, historical (or any combination thereof) >principles abortion is irresponsible. Again, this has been >often discussed in this group. The bald claim that abortion is irresponsible has been made in this group, but it has not, in my recollection, been supported. In other words, *what* moral, humanitarian, etc. principles? > ... >>"Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" >>Ken Montgomery > >Ed Hummel >"A hapless smurf" -- "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" Ken Montgomery ...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]
emh@bonnie.UUCP (Edward M. Hummel) (01/04/85)
{}
<M> = previous Ken Montgomery material
H* = previous Hummel stuff
>> ...
H* Maybe the mother is a criminal, in a sense. At the time of
H* conception she committed the "grave" offense of engaging in sexual
H* intercourse without being prepared and committed to accept the possible
H* consequences (pregnancy).
<M> Are you "prepared and commited to accept the possible consequences"
<M> of driving? Won't you seek medical aid if you have a car accident?
H* Yes. Yes, if injured.
<M> Then don't you think it inconsistent to deny medical aid of
<M> abortion to a woman who has become pregnant accidentally?
No.
<M> Is it really consistent to deny her the possibility of
<M> recovering from that accident quickly?
I repeat, it is not inconsistent. Once the life of the fetus becomes
involved other considerations come into play and the car accident
analogy breaks down.
>> ...
H* Excepting rape, voluntary consent has been acquired.
<M> Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. The woman has consented
<M> to the momentary presence of a man, *not* to presence of a child.
H* The crucial point. Both men and women should realize that consent to
H* have sex is consent to possible pregnancy.
<M> Nobody should "realize" anything that is false.
I agree. Nobody should "realize" anything that is false.
>> ...
<M> Why is carrying the child to term the only responsible way to handle
<M> accidental pregnancy? In other words, why is abortion irresponsible?
<M> Why should people "accept the results" of accidents?
H* Another fundamental point of disagreement. Based on moral,
H* humanitarian, ethical, religious, historical (or any combination thereof)
H* principles abortion is irresponsible. Again, this has been
H* often discussed in this group.
<M> The bald claim that abortion is irresponsible has been made in
<M> this group, but it has not, in my recollection, been supported.
<M> In other words, *what* moral, humanitarian, etc. principles?
Perhaps I should leave this for the people who have made the claims
to answer. In my view the principle most important, and perhaps the
basis for most of the principles used as arguments, is the sanctity of
human life. Others such as moral obligation to help the innocent,
religious doctrine that explicitly forbids abortion, etc. are not
nearly as widely accepted, although they can form a legitimate basis
for a 'pro-life' view. You could argue against either the
validity or the applicability of such principles; and you should.
--
<M> "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs"
<M> Ken Montgomery
Ed Hummelandrews@uiucdcsb.UUCP (01/11/85)
I am appaled that kjm has such a low view of human life. Thats like saying, I know there was a guy out back of my house, due to something I and someone else did, such as leaving food out, but I shot him because I did not want him on my property any more. It is not just a mass of tissues we are talking about, it is a human life. This is why abortion is wrong. Brad Andrews
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (01/14/85)
[] >I am appaled that kjm has such a low view of human life. Typical tactics. Anyone who doesn't agree with you gets his/her character assasinated. >Thats like saying, >I know there was a guy out back of my house, due to something I and someone >else did, such as leaving food out, To take your analogy at face value, why would you construe me leaving food out as an invitation to enter my property? Or, why do you construe the invitation for a man to enter a woman as an invitation for their child to live in her for 9 months? In each situation, I see no reason why the first action implies the second. Anyway, your analogy appears to equate the father and the fetus, which is silly. >but I shot him because I did not want him on >my property any more. He shouldn't have been there uninvited. >It is not just a mass of tissues we are talking about, >it is a human life. This is why abortion is wrong. Why is abortion wrong simply because it takes a human life? Why do humans have the right to live at the expense of others? > Brad Andrews -- The above viewpoints are mine. They are unrelated to those of anyone else, including my cats and my employer. Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (01/16/85)
[Ironic subject line, since the woman is the victim...] >From: emh@bonnie.UUCP (Edward M. Hummel) ><M> = previous Ken Montgomery material >H* = previous Hummel stuff >>> ... >H* Maybe the mother is a criminal, in a sense. At the time of >H* conception she committed the "grave" offense of engaging in sexual >H* intercourse without being prepared and committed to accept the possible >H* consequences (pregnancy). ><M> Are you "prepared and commited to accept the possible consequences" ><M> of driving? Won't you seek medical aid if you have a car accident? >H* Yes. Yes, if injured. ><M> Then don't you think it inconsistent to deny medical aid of ><M> abortion to a woman who has become pregnant accidentally? > >No. Oh. I rest my case on this one. Obviously Mr. Hummel enjoys the use of a different sort of logic than what I'm used to. ><M> Is it really consistent to deny her the possibility of ><M> recovering from that accident quickly? > >I repeat, it is not inconsistent. Once the life of the fetus becomes >involved other considerations come into play and the car accident >analogy breaks down. All analogies have their breaking points... but this one isn't there yet. The fetus is in the wrong here; its unwilling mother did *not* give it permission to begin using her resources. There is no "other consideration" which overrides a person's right to give or withhold her resources as she wills. >>> ... >H* Excepting rape, voluntary consent has been acquired. ><M> Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. The woman has consented ><M> to the momentary presence of a man, *not* to presence of a child. >H* The crucial point. Both men and women should realize that consent to >H* have sex is consent to possible pregnancy. ><M> Nobody should "realize" anything that is false. > >I agree. Nobody should "realize" anything that is false. Then nobody should "realize" that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy (possible or actual); it isn't. >>> ... ><M> Why is carrying the child to term the only responsible way to handle ><M> accidental pregnancy? In other words, why is abortion irresponsible? ><M> Why should people "accept the results" of accidents? >H* Another fundamental point of disagreement. Based on moral, >H* humanitarian, ethical, religious, historical (or any combination thereof) >H* principles abortion is irresponsible. Again, this has been >H* often discussed in this group. ><M> The bald claim that abortion is irresponsible has been made in ><M> this group, but it has not, in my recollection, been supported. ><M> In other words, *what* moral, humanitarian, etc. principles? > >Perhaps I should leave this for the people who have made the claims >to answer. Like yourself? "Based on moral, ... principles abortion is irresponsible." This is exactly such a claim. > In my view the principle most important, and perhaps the >basis for most of the principles used as arguments, is the sanctity of >human life. Why does the "sanctity of human life" forbid abortion? Does the woman's life have less sanctity than than of the fetus? > Others such as moral obligation to help the innocent, Unwanted fetuses are not innocent; try "thief". (Not that this alleged obligation has any force, per se...) >religious doctrine that explicitly forbids abortion, etc. are not >nearly as widely accepted, although they can form a legitimate basis >for a 'pro-life' view. That depends on whom you ask. Anyway, 'pro-life' is a misnomer; it really should be something more like 'pro-pregnancy-to-term'. > You could argue against either the >validity or the applicability of such principles; and you should. I am. >-- ><M> "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" ><M> Ken Montgomery > >Ed Hummel -- The above viewpoints are mine. They are unrelated to those of anyone else, including my cats and my employer. Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]
andrews@uiucdcsb.UUCP (01/19/85)
Taking an innocent human life is what is wrong, this person has done nothing wrong due to his own fault, he should not be killed for the "sins" or "mistakes" ok those who caused him(or her) to come into the world. When two people have sexual relations, one of the possible outcomes is having a child, however much unwanted this child is. They should face the consequences of their action. This low respect of committment to human life and people in general is what has led to our allowance of infant killing and euthenasia. It can also be seen in the high divorce rate, people no longer feel any need to stick out problems, they just kill them off in one way or another. Brad
mjc@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA (Monica Cellio) (01/21/85)
From: andrews@uiucdcsb.UUCP >Taking an innocent human life is what is wrong, this person has done nothing >wrong due to his own fault, he should not be killed for the "sins" or "mistakes" >ok those who caused him(or her) to come into the world. Yes, taking an innocent *human* life is wrong. I do not believe this applies to abortion, since the only *humans* involved are the parents. >When two people have sexual relations, one of the possible outcomes is having a >child, however much unwanted this child is. They should face the consequences >of their action. If I go outside in the middle of winter without an adequate coat (or if I mistakingly believe that my coat is sufficient protection), one of the possible outcomes is the flu. Your logic would imply that I don't have the right to take drugs to kill off the (living) bacteria. Yes, the analogy is farfetched in some respects, but I am trying to defeat the "logic" of "you knew it was a possible consequence so even if you believed you were doing everything in your power to prevent it, you *must* accept the consequences". It just doesn't hold. >This low respect of committment to human life and people in >general is what has led to our allowance of infant killing and euthenasia. I don't think this society "allows" infant killings, and depending on how you define euthenasia (do you mean active, i.e. pulling the plug, or passive, i.e. letting a person die?), the latter might not be relavent anyway. >It can also be seen in the high divorce rate, people no longer feel any need >to stick out problems, they just kill them off in one way or another. I expect the high divorce rate is due more to "rushing into things" (deciding to get married when neither party is really sure) rather than an unwillingness to try to solve problems. Divorce is a painful process and I don't think most people do it lightly. Eliminating the problem is a perfectly valid way to solve it. -Dragon -- UUCP: ...ucbvax!dual!lll-crg!dragon ARPA: monica.cellio@cmu-cs-cad or dragon@lll-crg
andrews@uiucdcsb.UUCP (01/27/85)
If the a fetus is not a human being, at what point does it become one? Brad
meister@faron.UUCP (Philip W. Servita) (01/29/85)
>If the a fetus is not a human being, at what point does it become one? > > Brad At what velocity does a head-on collision become fatal? Beats me, hence without any exact line drawn, we had better not do any driving at all. ( :-), i think ) -the venn buddhist -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "if people knew how to fly, they wouldnt want to walk their dogs" --------------------------------------------------------------------------
preece@ccvaxa.UUCP (01/31/85)
> If the a fetus is not a human being, at what point does it become one?
----------
The completion of the CNS is a tempting point. The inception of normal
brain activity might be another (I don't know enough to say). Actually,
I don't much care. The only restriction I'd be willing to impose is
that after a certain gestational age pregnancies would have to be
by a means not directly harmful to the fetus (that is, you can remove
life support but you can't hack up a human being). Induced labor
would be ok at any age. Surgical removal would be ok at any age.
Simple principle: once it's qualitatively a human being you can't
damage it, but it has no right to the use of its host's blood stream.
There's room to argue about, for instance, tying off the cord (is the
placenta part of the fetus or part of the host?) or use of chemicals
that would enter the fetus's blood from the host's.
scott preece
ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece