stu3@mhuxh.UUCP (Systems Training Dept) (09/21/84)
Before I start, let me say that the views below reflect my personal feelings only. Now,to work. From the net, as of a day or two ago: >> > That is correct. The robber is wholly resposible for his actions; >> > you are responsible for none of them. >> >> You entirely miss the point. If you don't play with, fire you won't >> get burned. > >Bull. Fire and robbers are not analogous. Fire is a non-sentient >phenomenon to which the concept of free will does not even apply. >A robber is a person, and therefore a sentient entity capable of >controlling his/her actions. A robber is therefore wholly responsible >for his/her own actions. Fires do not have minds with which to >consider the consequences of actions; fires do not even "act", in the >same sense of the word as people do. People act; fires happen. > >By the principle you appear to espouse, criminals are blameless, and >victims cause crime simply by failing to defend completely against >its possibility. > You are still missing the point, I think. The analogy does not depend on fires being sentient. The point is that when partners choose to have intercourse, both of them should be responsible for the consequences of that act. Pregnancy, despite what you say in the quote below, is typically a possible consequence of intercourse even when birth control methods are used. There are exceptions, such as when one or both partners is sterile. Now, if you don't want a pregnancy on your hands, one obvious solution is not to have intercourse at all, hence the "playing with fire" reference above. Of course, one may still choose to have intercourse, and thus, I must point out, exercise control over his/her body. A resulting pregnancy is just that: a result of a choice made. Asserting that abortion is controlling one's body is true enough on the surface, but underneath it just denotes a cop-out and unwillingness to take responsibility for one's own actions. Note that BOTH partners should be held responsible for an act of intercourse, so don't just slip away, guys, as society looks the other way. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> And as far as the woman's will, if she takes the >> risk, she should be willing to accept the consequences. >> >> >> Steve Wall > >The very existence of the medical procedure called "abortion" indicates >that an unwanted child is not the necessary consequence of an unwanted >pregnancy. The very existence of fairly reliable birth control indicates >that an unwanted pregnancy is not necessarily a risk associated with sex. >Pregnancy is neither a necessary risk nor a necessary consequence of sex. >There is, therefore, no such "risk" or "consequences" as you refer to. > Hmmm, I was under the impression that there was always a risk of pregnancy arising out of an act of intercourse involving two fertile individuals...birth control can indeed be "fairly reliable", but there's always a chance... My feeling is still that one should have the courage to take responsibilities for one's actions. There is a chance of pregnancy when intercourse occurs; if you choose to have intercourse, be prepared for that possibility. I cannot emphasize enough that such responsibility includes both partners. >BTW, when you drive down the highway, you take the risk that you will lose >control of your car and hit a bridge (or other large object). If this >should (Otis forbid!) happen to you, should you be denied medical treatment >on the grounds that you deserve to suffer the consequences of your action? > >-- >"Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" >Ken Montgomery > > No, I don't, Ken, but now I appear to be missing the point. You are talking about hitting a bridge; I am talking about causing harm to another. There would be an analogy if you hit a person instead of a bridge; you could be responsible (sued, put on trial, etc.) if a vehicle you were driving injured or killed another person. But in that case, so what? In both cases, life is harmed. *************************************************************************** BTW, don't expect me to take care of a child that is born from someone else's act of intercourse. It was their choice to have intercourse; they now have to live with the consequences. And, yes, I know that being pregnant is one of the most stressful times of life, and abortions can be shattering emotionally. This is one reason why we need better sex education in this country, (regardless of whether you are for abortion or not), so that people know exactly what they are lining themselves up for when they choose to have intercourse. Question: does anybody know about how far medicine has gotten with transplanting embryos? This might remove some of my objections to abortion, although the legal side of this whole idea has only gotten to the point where we are aware that it is a *mess*. I suppose I had best ring off now and let someone else have a go, besides, it is getting hard to see in here from all the smoke... it's also getting quite hot... As usual, flames welcome, tho intelligent discussion (fine if you don't feel my remarks above approached intelligence) is much preferred. Send to the net or you can attack me personally if you like thru the adrress below. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ "Scotty, get those shields up!" Mark Modig ..ihnp4!btlunix!mom
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (10/19/84)
>You are still missing the point, I think. The analogy does not >depend on fires being sentient. The point is that when partners >choose to have intercourse, both of them should be responsible for the >consequences of that act. Pregnancy, despite what you say in the >quote below, is typically a possible consequence of intercourse even when >birth control methods are used. There are exceptions, such as when >one or both partners is sterile. Now, if you don't want a pregnancy >on your hands, one obvious solution is not to have intercourse at >all, hence the "playing with fire" reference above. Of course, one >may still choose to have intercourse, and thus, I must point out, >exercise control over his/her body. A resulting pregnancy is just >that: a result of a choice made. Asserting that abortion is >controlling one's body is true enough on the surface, but underneath >it just denotes a cop-out and unwillingness to take responsibility for >one's own actions. Note that BOTH partners should be held >responsible for an act of intercourse, so don't just slip away, guys, as >society looks the other way. >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> And as far as the woman's will, if she takes the >>> risk, she should be willing to accept the consequences. >>> >>> >>> Steve Wall >> >>The very existence of the medical procedure called "abortion" indicates >>that an unwanted child is not the necessary consequence of an unwanted >>pregnancy. The very existence of fairly reliable birth control indicates >>that an unwanted pregnancy is not necessarily a risk associated with sex. >>Pregnancy is neither a necessary risk nor a necessary consequence of sex. >>There is, therefore, no such "risk" or "consequences" as you refer to. >> >Hmmm, I was under the impression that there was always a risk of >pregnancy arising out of an act of intercourse involving two fertile >individuals...birth control can indeed be "fairly reliable", but there's >always a chance... My feeling is still that one should have the >courage to take responsibilities for one's actions. There is a chance >of pregnancy when intercourse occurs; if you choose to have intercourse, >be prepared for that possibility. I cannot emphasize enough that such >responsibility includes both partners. My partner and I are prepared for the possibility of being pregnant by having deciding that if it will ever happen in the near future I will have an abortion. I do not see how you think you are allowed to say that we do not have the courage to take responsibility for our actions; we do; having an abortion takes a lot of courage when you know that you are destroying a potential beautiful relationship with your own child. Having an abortion when you know damn well you would not be able to take care of a child properly, is a much more responsible way to behave if you do find yourself pregnant, than keeping a child and making her suffer because of inadequate care. Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley
andrews@uiucdcsb.UUCP (10/31/84)
My partner and I are prepared to take any actions necessary after we rob liquor stores, even if it comes down to shooting someone. Can you say that our actions are not responsible now since we have thouroughly thought out what we will do, I mean shooting someone is not a minor consideration. Would you therefore support my and my partner's right to rob liquor stores? I would doubt it. Yet you think it is fine for you and your partner to kill an innocent child. You only mention the possible loss of a beutiful relation, and its effect on you, in your selfishness you ignore the death of a child. Brad Andrews