kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (10/16/84)
[Help stamp out feeping creatures!] >But there is some ( possibly small ) relationship between intercourse and >pregnancy, ergo a risk of pregnancy. *RISK*, not *NECESSITY*! > ... >Refusing to use the products of our mind does not terminate the existance >of another human being, and the products of our mind is not the result of >something we have done, if I understand your statement correctly. Clarify >your statement If you think that I don't. Clarify your objections. What exactly do *you* mean? >>That's probably one of the reasons why abortion was invented. > >Because people don't want to carry teh respnsiblity of their actions. (One more time...) Why is abortion irresponsible? > ... >>>You invite me to pitch a tent, and then put up electric barbed wire fences >>>to keep me out. If I get in anyways, am I there without your consent? >> >>This analogy is fundamentally broken. It assumes that contraception is >>entirely the responsibility of the woman. > >Where does the analogy state that women carry the responsibility? In the phrase about the "barbed wire fence". >> It also contains a blatant >>contradiction. The very use of birth control is an indication that >>the partners *DO NOT* want a baby. Thus it is ridiculous to suggest >>that sex with birth control is consent to pregnancy. > >Again, there is a risk of pregnancy even with birth control, and the couple >(not just the woman) should be prepared to carry the responsibility. (Yet one more time...) Why is abortion irresponsible? >>Anyway, why does taking this risk morally obligate one to carry any >>resulting baby to term? Why is it that one person can enforce a >>demand for support on another, or have it enforced for her? > >If you're refering to the fetus demanding the support of the mother, the >fetus didn't ask to be conceived, Nor did the mother ask for her particular biological characteristics. > and even small children demand the support >of the mother, so why not abort them, too? This is an entertaining red herring -- "abortion", in context, is a medical procedure done to terminate a pregnancy before birth; this term is wholly inapplicable to an entity which has been born. > And what about the extremely mentally hadicapped? > They need the support of others for their very survival, >so why not abort them? 1) See above, under "red herring". 2) You seem to believe that there are only two possible actions towards people in need: help them, or harm them. This is false. There is a third possibility: ignore them. This (obviousy) does not help them. It also does them no harm; they will be no better or worse off than if you had never existed. > Steve Wall > ...!ritcv!ritvp!spw2562 -- "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" Ken Montgomery ...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]