liz@umcp-cs.UUCP (Liz Allen) (10/25/84)
In article <47700016@hpfcla.UUCP> woof@hpfcla.UUCP (woof) writes: > >> "Well, you >> know Mom, since I was raped I really would like to get an abortion >> 'cause, you know, it might be kind of difficult to have the kid since >> I'm only 15." > >I keep seeing this what-if-you're-raped arguement here. What percentage of >abortions are due to rape? I doubt that the number is very large. Statistics, >anyone? Less than 1% of all abortions are because of rape or incest. And far less pregnancies would occur in these categories if women realized that a rape is a rape (even if it is done by a date) and got immediate medical attention... (I don't mean to be down on the women here but the attitudes in our society that can make a woman feel guilty when she is the victim...) The "what if you're raped" argument is not a good one for two reasons. First, the vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with rape, and second, if the fetus should have the right to live, then that most fundamental right should not be denied even in the very sad situation of the rape of the mother. Please see my sympathy for the unwilling mother-to-be in these situations -- it's hard enough in the cases she was not raped! -- -Liz Allen Univ of Maryland, College Park MD Usenet: ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz Arpanet: liz@maryland "This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all" -- 1 John 1:5
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/25/84)
> The "what if you're raped" argument is not a good one for two reasons. > First, the vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with rape, and > second, if the fetus should have the right to live, then that most > fundamental right should not be denied even in the very sad situation > of the rape of the mother. > -Liz Allen Liz, you are not clearly presenting the choice involved. There are two, debatable "rights" involved, and priorities must be assigned to each. The first is the "right" of a woman to choose whose children to bear. The second is the "right" of a gamete/embryo/fetus/newborn to live. You assume that the second is absolute, and thus always overrides the first. Many of us, however, would grant that in cases of rape the first overrides the second. This is a demonstration to us that we don't think of the second as absolute. That knowledge enables us to then perform a balancing test, to decide when abortion is alright, and when not. -- Mike Huybensz ...mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
liz@umcp-cs.UUCP (Liz Allen) (10/28/84)
In article <196@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >Liz, you are not clearly presenting the choice involved. There are two, >debatable "rights" involved, and priorities must be assigned to each. >The first is the "right" of a woman to choose whose children to bear. >The second is the "right" of a gamete/embryo/fetus/newborn to live. >You assume that the second is absolute, and thus always overrides the first. >Many of us, however, would grant that in cases of rape the first overrides >the second. Hmmm. Was I mistaken to assume that, for the born, the right to live is the most fundamental right? In our society, killing another human being is only sanctioned (1) in an execution after a lot of due process and only for someone convicted of murder (or rape?) or (2) in killing an enemy soldiers in a war. I'm not saying whether these are right or wrong; I'm just observing that our society considers human life fairly precious (at least for those already born!). And, even when continuing someone's life requires a lot of effort (as when someone is in need of a lot of medical care), we usually consider it worth it. Now, what I was trying to say, is that *if* we *do* confer the right to life to the unborn and acknowledge that they, too, are human beings just like the born, then, even in the very hard case of rape, the unborn cannot be denied the right to live. Fortunately, as I have said before, rape constitutes a very small number of unwanted pregnancies -- less than 1%. > This is a demonstration to us that we don't think of the >second as absolute. That knowledge enables us to then perform a balancing >test, to decide when abortion is alright, and when not. Perhaps you wish to confer a high value on the unborn's right to live without allowing it to be as high as the born's right to live. There is some justification in that -- most prolifer's would grant the right to an abortion if the mother-to-be's life is threatened. (Fortunately, medicine has advanced to the point that a tubular pregnancy is almost the only case of this.) However, you want to place a lower value than that... Let me end with this: What value do you think should be placed on the life of the unborn? I'm all for raising this value in our society... Almost none is pretty bad... -- -Liz Allen Univ of Maryland, College Park MD Usenet: ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz Arpanet: liz@maryland "This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all" -- 1 John 1:5
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/29/84)
Liz Allen writes: > Hmmm. Was I mistaken to assume that, for the born, the right to > live is the most fundamental right? In our society, killing another > human being is only sanctioned (1) in an execution after a lot of > due process and only for someone convicted of murder (or rape?) or > (2) in killing an enemy soldiers in a war. I'm not saying whether > these are right or wrong; I'm just observing that our society > considers human life fairly precious (at least for those already > born!) [...] > > Perhaps you wish to confer a high value on the unborn's right to live > without allowing it to be as high as the born's right to live. There > is some justification in that -- most prolifer's would grant the right > to an abortion if the mother-to-be's life is threatened. (Fortunately, > medicine has advanced to the point that a tubular pregnancy is almost > the only case of this.) > > However, you want to place a lower value than that... Let me end > with this: What value do you think should be placed on the life > of the unborn? [....] I think I'm going to enjoy arguing with you, Liz. You are one of the few pro-choicers I've argued with who are honest or intellectual enough to avoid oversimplifying the issue. You use caveats, such as "In our society." Good. That's where I'll start. "Our society" is not monolithic. For example, a little thought will turn up many other examples of where it might be appropriate to kill, both in what you think of as mainstream culture and various cultures with smaller representations. Nor is our society static. It can and does change in many directions. Other societies have incorporated abortion and infanticide into their normal practices. I could even make an argument for naturally occurring abortion and infanticide in animals as an adaptive evolutionary strategy. Thus, we cannot just rule out abortion or infanticide as being bad or undesirable. What humans allow each other to kill (people, animals, infants, fetuses) is strongly correllated with who has a special interest in the subject killed. For example, kill an adult and friends and relatives may take revenge because that adult could have enhanced their genetic fitness by bearing more relatives, providing income with which to raise relatives, provided defense for relatives, etc. Kill a sacred cow, and you are taking a major source of food and fuel from somebody. The examples are endless. How does this apply then to abortion and infanticide? The only people with a special interest in infants and the unborn are the parents and other relatives. If assaulting a pregnant woman causes loss of the fetus, then the parents and relatives are deprived of offspring that they might desire. But if they don't desire a child, because they are too poor, it's the wrong sex, or it's abnormal, or it will make it difficult for a woman to marry later after she already has a child, then the fetus or newborn represents a detriment to the woman's genetic fitness. If you look at abortion and infanticide practices in many cultures, they correspond to these interpretations. Thus I support abortion as an option of the parents, unless the embryo/fetus/ newborn can be adopted immediately. Examples: 1) Embryo/fetus can be transferred to host mother, or if none is available may be aborted. 2) "Normal" viable newborn/premie may be adopted: if not, may be euthanized. 3) Abnormals may be aborted or euthanized until shortly after birth, or adopted. I think that this position allows maximal choice and recognition of the reproductive decisions that people want and need to make. Essentially, there would be a presumption of humanity for the unborn unless the parents declare the unborn to be unwanted. -- Mike Huybensz ...mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
liz@tove.UUCP (Liz Allen) (11/04/84)
In article <197@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes in response to an earlier article by me: >I think I'm going to enjoy arguing with you, Liz. You are one of the few >pro-choicers I've argued with who are honest or intellectual enough to >avoid oversimplifying the issue. You use caveats, such as "In our society." (I assume Mike means "pro-lifer"!) But the reason I'm saying "in our society" is that our society recognizes the importance of the right to life -- except in the case of the unborn. I'm trying to use the fundamental nature of this right to question our throwing away of this right so completely in the case of the unborn... Mike here is discussing the reason he believes society grants at least some members the right to live. >[...] >What humans allow each other to kill (people, animals, infants, fetuses) >is strongly correllated with who has a special interest in the subject >killed. For example, kill an adult and friends and relatives may take revenge >because that adult could have enhanced their genetic fitness by bearing >more relatives, providing income with which to raise relatives, provided >defense for relatives, etc. Kill a sacred cow, and you are taking a major >source of food and fuel from somebody. The examples are endless. How does >this apply then to abortion and infanticide? But don't we think that murder is wrong even when it's done to someone we don't know? And it's not because we're being sympathetic with that person's friends and relatives -- though we may feel sympathy for them. Aren't we usually thinking how wrong it was for, say, a young person to die with so much of their life ahead of them? Or, that an older person was killed in a senseless way when their courage and perseverance had just conquered some disease or other hardship? Or, that they somehow just didn't deserve it? Aren't these observations at least suggest that we value other people just because they are people? >The only people with a special interest in infants and the unborn are the >parents and other relatives. [...] No one else is interested enough to believe that an infant's death is wrong in the sense I'm using above? I don't believe that for one moment. I don't even believe that there is no one else out there willing to support and raise a child if the parents and other relatives would just as soon kill the infant... In the case of the unborn, notice that Mike has not argued that there is anything qualitatively different from an infant. I think that if the uterus had a window, we would react to an unborn's death the same way we would feel about an infant's death... To our shame, we know more about the development of the unborn than any previous generation yet we tolerate their being killed without much concern... We've *got* to face up to this!! -- -Liz Allen Univ of Maryland, College Park MD Usenet: ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz Arpanet: liz@maryland "This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all" -- 1 John 1:5