brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson) (08/15/84)
I am quoting an article by:
? Ray Simard
? Who decides if there is "enough room"?
If we don't, mother nature will. There are not enough resources for
everyone we can make, because the earth is finite. Therefore, there
is not enough "right to life" for everyone we could produce. Humans
would like to be "above" nature, but that just doesn't work yet. We
still need to eat other living things of which there is a finite amount.
(So let's increase our resources by leaving earth.
Space pays. But that's a different newsgroup)
? And, if the unborn have no
? rights, by what authority do the born have rights (note: that's us).
The authority is us, too. We are the authority purely by default.
That just means we have the ability to exercise authority. We have
to make the rules clear so that some individuals have little chance
of using that authority dangerously.
? When arbitrary conditions are used to justify the most basic of
? rights, the right to live, can other erosions of rights be far behind?
If there are not enough resources for everyone to >survive<, can you
even >expect< any rights beyond life? If a person in hardship can
barely (or not even) support herself, do you think she can provide
for any rights >beyond< that of life to another person?
? Ok, so only children who are wanted and feedable have the right
? to exist. What about the living, breathing children who fail to
? qualify? Do you advocate infanticide if conditions are such that
? the child's social future appears less than ideal?
No, I do NOT advocate infanticide. There >are< people who actually
adopt children, rather than just preaching. Also, abortion will reduce
the unwanted children.
? In cases other than rape, the woman made the decision by agreeing
? to sex without adequate protection. Again, if the woman does,
? for whatever reason, bear the child, then decides she would rather
? have aborted it, can she destroy it? What's the difference?
To rape, add ignorance.
Children who are discovering sex aren't always responsible or even
informed about what could happen.
We have to draw the line somewhere, to protect ourselves. We have
decided that children and adults should live. Modern civilization has
given up infanticide. We probably will gain much more than we could
lose through abortion.
? As to women's vs. embryos' rights: there is one hell of a difference
? between the right to avoid the responsibility of a baby, and the
? right to live! The woman may experience hardship, but that is the
? natural consequence of her chosen action (ignoring the long lines
? of couples seeking to adopt). There are numerous avenues which a woman
? can take to get help in handling this responsibility, and she certainly
? deserves support and compassion. But killing the resulting person
? is not part of that.
Person? What person? Define person first. I'll agree that there is
a homo-sapiens embryo in her, but you haven't even said what a person IS.
The part about "avoid the responsibility" sounds like she was a naughty
girl, so we should punish her with a baby. What we really should be doing
is giving people the opportunity to be responsible. That means sex
education and available birth control (with no restrictions or embarassment).
Are the anti-abortionists doing that?
? >What are you going to do about the ~70% of fertilized ova that
? >die naturally?
? What about them? That is a fact of nature, not the result of a deliberate,
? conscious act. Let's stick to what we can control.
Obviously, the embryo itself isn't TOO important, because we just let
those embryos die. What is the difference between natural embryo death
and abortion? Just intent. And we can control some embryos' lives by
pushing people around, so let's do it. (?)
?
? I do understand that there is an awesome responsibility here. And I
? do empathize with the often frightened, worried women faced with a
? positive pregnancy test. But there are other avenues, adoption being
? one.
These frightened and worried women might be afraid of being
(or unwilling to be) pregnant (for whatever reasons).
If a child could (and if he >would<) be adopted while still an embryo,
the situation would be simple. Right now, the task is to
make sex education and birth control plentiful. (prevention is the
best remedy) The right to lifers don't do well in that category.
? And killing a person who happens to be in a pre-birth stage of
? development is no more justifiable than killing that same person after
? birth, even if the same reasons for wanting to do so are present.
Please justify this statement.
Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianp