wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (03/19/84)
Last Thursday, a child was born in New York City. The child was 9 inches long and weighed 14 ounces. The child was born after only 16 weeks of development in the womb. The child lived until Sunday, when it died of a cerreberal hemmorage. This child was born 8 weeks before the end of the second trimester which means it still could have been legally aborted at any time. Now, for all of you who are arguing over this issue, was it a human being or not? If not, why? The birth of this child has raised an uproar in this area concerning abortion. Think about it a moment. If medical expertise is advancing at such a rate that a four month old fetus(?) can survive outside the womb (for even three days), where does this put the 24 week abortion cutoff? I still have mixed feelings about abortion, but, with this latest episode, I am begining to lean. The question of rape or incest are one set of pro- blems, deformity or other abberations are another, while out and out abortion for the purposes of birth control are still murder in my book. As medical science advances, how long will it be before a fetus can be taken from its mother and survive at less than 20 weeks? Right now, nurses and doctors report that many fetuses are born live and have to be euthanized after an abortion has been performed. Just sit back and think about what we are doing. BTW, has anyone thought about what the rights of the Father are in some of these cases? There have been a couple of court cases so far, but I don't recall reading the outcome. It seems that some of the more vehement pro-abortion at any cost advocates have not given up their "me generation" outlook on life. T. C. Wheeler
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (03/22/84)
re: the rights of the father.
I think that the rights of the father are completely irrelevant in the abortion
question. If we assume that the right of a fetus to live is stronger than the
right of the mother not to go through her pregnancy, then its right to live will
also be stronger than the right of the father not to want it to live.
If we assume that each person has the right to determine what they can or cannot
have in their body, then this precludes the father from having any rights over
the mother's body.
No matter what happens, the father does have one right, and that is to have a
child with a woman who is willing to carry it; I don't think that
this is what is being debated here and I don't really see why it should be.
Sophie Quigley
...!{decvax,allegra}!watmath!saquigleylaura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/23/84)
Sophie, the argument about the fater is as follows. Suppose I get pregnant. I don't want the child and decide to have an abortion. My boyfriend, however, wants me to have the child -- it will be *his* child as well as mine and he wants it. Does he have any rights? If not, why not? -- Laura Creighton utzoo!laura "Capitalism is a lot of fun. If you aren't having fun, then you're not doing it right." -- toad terrific
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (03/26/84)
As a believer that women should have the right to control their body and
that nobody should have the right to force a woman to carry a fetus she
does not want, I do not see why the father should have more right to force
her to carry his fetus just because the fetus happened to originate from his
sperm.
Looking at it from the pro-life point of view, if the mother does not have the
right to abort her fetus, then why should the father have that right?
Once the child is born, things are different in that both can take care of the
child equally, except for lactation, but while the child is in the mother's
womb she is the only one who si taking care of it, so I believe she should be
the only one making the decision of whether or not she wants to take care of it
(given of course that she is allowed to make that decision)
Didn't I say exactly that already?
Sophie Quigley
...!{decvax,allegra}!watmath!saquigleyix192@sdccs6.UUCP (03/26/84)
[] From: ...utzoo!laura (Laura Creighton) > Sophie, > the argument about the fater is as follows. Suppose I get pregnant. I > don't want the child and decide to have an abortion. My boyfriend, > however, wants me to have the child -- it will be *his* child as well > as mine and he wants it. Does he have any rights? If not, why not? He does, but he doesn't own your body (Yes it comes down to that!). He has the right to put himself through child-raising, but he has no right to make you go through that as well, nor the birth. He just wound up on the wrong side of the pregnancy to have the child, which is man's position in life. We gave up our rights to children with out a partner's help, and so if you don't want to offer your help to your boyfriend, he'll have to make do or find someone else who will. Just because he is the father does not mean he has any more right than someone else to make you have the baby. It's partially his, but it's in your trust, in your control. You should be able to do with it as you with. Kenn the Kenf ...!sdcsvax!kenn ...!sdcsvax!sdccs6!ix192 ...!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!kenn
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/31/84)
If it is all a woman's choice whether or not to have an abortion then the question of life becomes one which is handed to one sex. The other is told that their maleness makes the decision one which does not concern them. I think that this is a terrible mistake. Since the genetic composiiton of te fetus is 50% from the male, what makes te fetus a part of the body of the woman? Location only? Is this reasonable? Laura Creighton -- Laura Creighton utzoo!laura "Capitalism is a lot of fun. If you aren't having fun, then you're not doing it right." -- toad terrific