NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/talk/abortion/55255

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-11 | 4.0 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!nobody
From: [e-mail] (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Questions for Pro-Choice advocates
Date: 11 Jan 1993 16:43:39 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael Updike) writes:

>Society is composed of men and women and I have said before on this
>thread I want to help convince society in general to reconsider its position and
>eventually recognize rights for the fetus (the reasons for which I have
>discussed previously in the context of late term fetal development vs.
>newborns).

Now, think this through.

Let's say you weren't a human, but were an advanced form of space alien.
You get called in to solve a problem on Earth.

There are people on earth.  And let's say, just for the record, that we
have decided to use essentially the US Constitution as a basis for our
governance.

Now, you are a space alien (or, if you have trouble with that, you are an
advanced earthling, and you are solving this problem for another race of
creatures who have asked for your help.  whichever.).  You don't have a
stake in the decision.  It doesn't affect you, personally.

This race of people are proposing a set of laws that would directly conflict
with another set of laws.  In fact, they are proposing a set of laws that
would directly conflict not with mere law, but with the basic underpinning
of their society.  For example, they were proposing instituting slavery, say,
after stating that a basic underpinning of their society was individual
freedom.

Would you suggest to these folk that it would be a *good* idea to write into
law a direct contradiction?  An irresolveable contradiction?  An unenforceable
contradiction?


Now, we know that, currently, women actually do have rights as people.  You
know, the same rights you take for granted.

Proposing a 'right to life' for a fetus is going to make a real mess of things,
and would directly contradict those rights that women, as people, actually
have.  Why does this look like a good idea to you?


>The only difference I can think of is that oxygen(I think) and nourishment is provided
>through the umbilical chord rather than orally because the environment prevents
>it. This doesn't seem to fundamentally affect personhood.

You are kidding.  This is the 'only' difference?  And 'personhood' is the only
aspect of this situation that we should bother to examine?  How '
bout you talk to a few women who have just delivered babies.  Yep -- you can
find 'em if you look hard.  They aren't really invisible.

>Again, I hope society eventually considers this an issue of competing rights
>and finds the right to life of the fetus the controlling right in most cases.

I think if society found this, society would have a hell of a problem on it's
hands.  Do you really think that women would just sit back and say, "Gee,
look at what all those folks decided.  Well, I guess I can be a sub-person for
a few months.  Afterall, the only real difference is that oxygen and nourishment
is provided throuhg the umbilical cord, which doesn't fundamentally affect
personhood." ...and not notice, somehow, how pregnancy fundamentally affects
their person?  I don't think so.,

I think this kind of 'finding' would open the biggest can of worms you've
seen in a long time.  Imagine the repurcussions -- "War on Non-Moms!  News
at 11!".  Think what it would do to our GNP.  Think what it would do, in all
likelihood, to the lives of, say, fully 1/2 the people you know.

Well, it probably wouldn't have that kind of impact after all, because so
many people would be circumventing such a finding.  But it would still be
a pretty big pile of excrement.

Does that look like any way to run a society?

Adrienne Regard