peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (03/29/84)
>From: welsch@houxu.UUCP (Larry Welsch) >Subject: Abortion - Men's Rights >Posted: Tue Mar 27 10:00:36 1984 > > ... > >Sexual intercourse if done of free will contains an implicit contract for >both parties. In the case of no pregnancy, the contract becomes null and >void, but in the case of pregnancy then the contract is that if either >party wants the fetus then the mother must birth the child and both >parents are responsible for support. This is probably one of the more off-the-wall things said in connection with abortion. It is certainly not in Canadian law (a case of exactly this sort was decided in favour of the mother, who wanted an abortion, just last week). Sophie argued against the notion of such a contract effectively in a previous message. All I will add is that any such "axiomatic" treatment of the issue is doomed to failure, inasmuch as you will not get substantial agreement on your conclusions. It may be hard for people trained in science and logic to realize that an issue can't be solved by straightforward deduction, but that seems to be the inevitable conclusion of the weeks of debate in this group. Which brings me to a question, in two forms: (Strong version) Have you been "converted" from a pro-life to a pro-choice view, or vice-versa, by reading the discussions in this group? (Weak version) Have you newly discovered issues which were either significant or interesting to you, possibly moderating the degree of conviction you have to one side of the debate, by reading this group? Please mail me replies, indicating whether or not you mind being quoted. peter rowley, University of Toronto Department of C.S., Ontario Canada M5S 1A4 UUCP {linus ihnp4 allegra floyd utzoo cornell decwrl uw-beaver}!utcsrgv!peterr CSNet peterr@toronto