Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    See also:
    
    Womannotes-V1
    406 - Fetal Rights vs. Maternal Rights
    
    Womannotes-V2
    735 - two-legged incubators
    
    

    Isn't 8-1/2 months cutting it a bit close........34 weeks is viable.
    
    I don't think the woman had the intent to kill....that's the
    difference.
    
    Ken

    Ken,
    Your point is well taken on the "intent".  However, I wonder if a
    clever pro-life attorney could argue the case of "negligent homicide"?
    
    What concerns me about all of the cases cited is the establishment of
    laws that govern the womb.  The statement on the woman as a "vessel" is
    particularly powerful in that regard.
    
    Chris
    

    Seems like we are entering a stage in reproduction when you're damned
    if you do, and damned if you don't.  I think the statement that
    so-called fetal rights are overtaking the rights of the woman "vessel"
    pretty much hit the nail on the nose.  Just makes me all that more
    inclined to say I'll never have children.  
    
    Pretty sad.  Aren't there other "rights" we as a society should
    be worrying about?
    
    ---kim

See also:

The Handmaid's Tale
(Margateret Atwood)

D!

    I have to say that the concept that a woman is somehow 'required'
    to produce a healthy infant, or stand accused of a crime, is
    unbelieveably frightening. *NO ONE* can guarantee, even with the
    best will in the world, excellent pre-natal care, 'correct' levels
    of exercise, good nutrition, etc. etc. that the infant which is
    born will be perfect.  The medical profession both disagrees and
    changes, on a regular basis, the guidelines for what the mother
    needs to do to have a healthy infant.  (Remember when moms were
    hospitalized if they gained more than 20 lbs?  If I'm over 30 and
    refuse an amnio, have I done a good or bad thing?  If I run every
    day, when should I stop?  Doctors disagree.)
    
    So many of the consequences of drug use and malnutrition impact
    the embryo *before the woman is even sure she is pregnant* - shall
    we blame the *woman* for her circumstances?
    
    I despair that our society will ever manage to approach these problems
    with the compassion and care that will result in 'justice' for both
    the mothers and the infants.
    
    Alison

    This a very hot button for me.  Since I've been given to ranting and
    raving in the past, I'm going to just let this all out and if it looks
    like paranoia or seems far-fetched, so be it.  But this is what I truly
    believe.
    
    "The fetus" is the latest tool being used in society's desperate
    attempt to retain control over women, which it has been losing steadily
    since the 60s in general, the invention of reliable birth control in
    particular.  I really believed the abortion issue was so heated because
    it was the last area of control over women.  Once we secured the right 
    to determine our own fertility and could then embark on a work life 
    free from the specter of ever-impending pregnancy, we would be as free
    as men.  But I was wrong.  From abortion, the arena is now shifting to 
    pregnancy itself.  If the government can't decree that once pregnant, 
    women will remain pregnant, then it will change its focus to pregnancy
    itself secure in the knowledge that that will involve nearly every woman's
    life.
    
    As women become increasingly autonomous and less dependent on having to
    please men in order to get one in order to gain legitimacy, society
    tries harder and harder to find ways to limit that autonomy, afraid, I
    assume, that women will discover that they have another agenda and will
    remove their support from the patriarchal systems which produce war,
    which value gold and oil over human lives, etc.  Government must insure
    that women support patriarchy and male goals or risk losing a huge tax
    base, a huge constituency, a huge cheap labor pool, a huge smut
    industry, etc.  
    
    The fetus provides the perfect opportunity since very few would argue 
    against the goal of insuring healthy babies.
    
    Where society used to pit men against women, it now pits women against
    their wombs attempting to separate women from fetuses, dealing with
    them as two distinct entities.  The fetus's rights versus the mother's
    rights.  The fetus IS the mother and vice versa.  Perhaps the
    underlying belief of "society", (or those in it who would attempt to
    separate out a part of a woman and claim it theirs rather than hers),
    is that nature, (or a deity), was wrong or shortsighted or something
    when it decided that humans would begin life as part of women.  Society
    seems to have an awful time accepting that all of its members must
    begin life completely dependent on women - human women who run the full
    gamut of behaviors, quirks, attitudes and habits that all humans do.
    In separating out fetuses from women, society is suggesting that
    suddenly, after all the years and all the humans who have managed to be
    born healthy enough to overpopulate the planet, this dependence is a 
    dangerous thing and official steps must now be taken to "protect" 
    fetuses from women.  Give me a break.  Extrapolating this trend a
    little, is it so difficult to imagine that in the next century
    pregnancy itself might be illegal and parents will be expected to 
    incubate all their offspring in artifical wombs, (which now exist!), 
    where every aspect of their development can be controlled and "protected"
    from the foibles of women?  This is a dangerous trend and I really do 
    believe if left unchecked, it will continue on to this end. 
    
    This would be another good application of the article I entered in the
    "Do women cost more" string.  Alcoholism, drug dependence, violence,
    aggressive driving, all these "bad" things that society is trying to 
    protect fetuses from is far more prevalent in the male than in the fe-
    male.  There is an increase in FAS and cocaine babies, that's true.  But 
    by even thinking about enacting laws, our government is subtlely sug-
    gesting that the reason is because women as a group are becoming more 
    irresponsible and therefore must now be controlled because they can no 
    longer be trusted with the job of bearing children.
    
    More and more we will hear about women being prosecuted for these 
    ridiculous reasons and each time we do, a legal precedent is set and the 
    way is paved for more stringent controls in the future.  If nothing else,
    the hypocrisy alone betrays the underlying goal.  Drug treatment centers 
    don't take pregnant women but the overcrowded jails will!  In Boston
    alone, criminals are being released early to ease overcrowding. 
    They're release also makes room for "bad mommies".  If you had one jail
    cell, one murderer and one pregnant woman who doesn't like exercise, who 
    would YOU put in the cell and why?
    
    Somewhere back in the 40s or 50s, the American Medical Association took
    pregnancy away from women.  Before then, women delivered via midwives
    and men pretty much were excluded.  But then the AMA formed and lobbied
    to make midwifery illegal.  For about 10 years after that, the maternal
    *and infant* mortality rate soared as physicians went through a
    learning curve to gain the experience and wisdom the outlawed midwives
    possessed.  This dramatic increase in mortality rate certainly isn't 
    something the country was informed about but it is clear to me that an 
    increase in deaths for women and babies was not considered a problem - 
    or at least was considered just an unfortunate side effect of achieving 
    the goal - societal control of women via control of pregnancy.
    
    The trend continues, now in the 90s, via this new wrinkle and we are
    expected to swallow this pap that the government, (and doctors of
    course), are soooooo concerned with healthy women and babies.  It just
    isn't true.  Fetal rights are women's rights and vice versa.  Fetuses
    belong to women just as surely as women's heart do and that the
    government would "use" fetuses as leverage in their battle for control
    disgusts me.  As a group, women have done and will continue to do a
    superlative job of keeping the species viable.  That this world is
    overpopulated due in large part to governments withholding fertility 
    control from women is no mere coincidence!
    
    I too would like to see all babies be born healthy and wanted.  But
    unfortunately, it was set up that new humans will have to come from "mere"
    humans - some good, some not so good.  Who is the government to decide
    that this system isn't a good one - that the very humanness of women is
    what makes them unfit for doing the job unsupervised and uncontrolled?
    And how can we as women sit back and let these clowns try to convince
    us of this?  If we ever manage to coalesce into the strong political
    force we could be, the first thing we need to do is to take back
    pregnancy - put it back squarely in the hands of women.  That is where
    it was placed in the beginning and I for one have no delusions of
    grandeur or self-importance or the arrogance to suggest that *I* know 
    better.  But your government does.  Beware!     
      

    That was certainly some of the best ranting and raving I have ever
    read.  I, too, share the fear that if we sit by and say "Gee, look at
    that!" and never comprehend that the invasion of the womb by law is
    gradually taking away our rights and freedom, we have started to
    regress to a place where we may never return from.  I can't sit by and
    be complacent and I hope that many of you reading this cannot, also.  
    

    But Sandy, I think you're wrong about the effect of artificial wombs.
    Just think about it. At puberty, when our eggs are fresh and men's
    sperm is most virile, the government makes everyone donate a supply of
    their future off-spring. They are then sterilized.

    Now it gets good. Since we don't have to worry about people loving each
    other the scientists can mix and match to produce super babies. They
    can mix races till we have a nice average conglomerate sort of
    individual produced. They can weed out birth defects and breed for
    intelligence.

    Now just don't worry about the fact that collie breeders created dogs
    with pointy heads and no brains, or that quarter horse breeders created
    horses with tiny feet that looked good but couldn't support the horse's
    big bodies. We could have women with gigantic breasts and men with
    enormous penises. And they'd all have the brains to know just what the
    bastards did to them. Or not. liesl

    re: MEMVAX::Ciccolini
    
    350,000 babies born in the USA were born last year were drug addicted.
    That, to me, is worthy of some attention.
    
    Crack cocaine is epidemic. It's appealing to women. It's killing our
    children.
    
    What do you want to do about it?
    
    Kate
                         

    What do I want to do about it?  First off, treatment centers should
    make pregnant women a priority and government funds should be available
    for those who can't afford to pay.  Welfare should stop penalizing
    women, (and men), who find work.  The system should not offer a free 
    ride, but should *supplement* the incomes of those who need it thereby
    encouraging people to take control of their lives and plan for better
    futures for themselves like all of us are trying to do.  Don't give 
    people food stamps with which they can buy sara lee cakes and trade for
    cash to buy booze and drugs, give them nutritious FOOD instead.  You
    can buy bubblegum with food stamps but you can't buy toilet paper.  
    
    If a *chance* for a better life exists and is dependent upon people
    taking some initiative and control, (just as there is for the middle
    and upper classes), then social pressure against those who lie
    down and go belly up can be a more effective anti-drug tool than if
    there is no place to go - nothing a woman can do to break out of the
    poverty that too often leaves her fertility uncontrolled and the
    uncontrolled fertility that chains her to more poverty.
    
    Everyone knows the good feeling of accomplishment, the sense of pride
    in making one's own way.  This is the best tool we can use to break
    this cycle but as our system is run now, that is removed.  A woman
    makes out much better financially by having a baby than by taking a part 
    time job in a restaurant as a dishwasher.  The reward system needs to be 
    tied more closely to those aspects of humanity that are good for all - the
    sense of pride and accomplishment.  It won't turn around overnight,
    but gradually it will begin to dawn on people that there IS a better way 
    and it is within their reach.  And as success stories begin to unfold, 
    social pressure to take that route begins to grow and fewer and fewer 
    people will be subject to the abject hopelessness that is most often the 
    cause of true addictions.
    
    Doctors too have a stake in this.  Entrance to medical schools is
    highly competetive so what is the one thing it "selects" for?  Highly
    competetive students.  And that makes for a profession not of healers
    so much as highly competetive people.  And this is responsible for 
    the dramatic increase in "heroic" medicine and the subsequent decrease
    in "general" medicine.  Few doctors want to give free prenatal care to
    a poor, pregnant woman but they love to "save" cocaine babies, do
    transplants, invent prostheses.  Remember these are highly competetive
    people motivated toward personal success.  Medicine is still a profes-
    sion more of "fixing" rather than preventing and ever since the old
    days of DeBakey in Texas and Barnard in South Africa, doctors have
    acquired a taste for fame and some are even celebrities.  Look at
    Jarvik for a recent example.  They don't want to administer vitamins to
    poor pregnant women, they want to do the first brain transplant!
    
    In short, the increase in drug-addicted babies, (and I include alcohol
    and nicotine as drugs which the government of course, does not), is NOT
    due to an increase in irresponsibility of women and we cannot allow the
    government to bamboozle us into thinking that it is and that they will
    simply jail these women because they don't have the money to start
    them down the road to pride and self-accomplishment.  It was spent on a
    stealth bomber or a limo or a hooker for some visiting dignitary or a
    lavish reception for Charles and Diana.  You pay a lot of social
    security too and our elderly are literally freezing and starving in 
    their homes.  Why?  Presidents regularly "borrow" from the Social
    Security account because it's so flush!  We have become a government of 
    the government, by the government and for the government and all of us 
    here at Digital were fortunate enough to get on the road to pride and 
    accomplishment such that we are able to protect ourselves against this 
    and live decently anyway.

    RE: .2 - For legal purposes, fetal viability begins at 28 weeks. 
    

    What if the basenote wasw slightly different, and read that the mother
    had a newborn baby, one hour old, riding unprotected on the seat
    beside her, when due to drunk driving she had an accident, and the baby
    died as a result.
    
    How would that change things?  Would she be guilty of negligent
    manslaughter because she was drunk? Or because he was not in a car
    seat? Or nothing, because afterall he was only an hour old, and
    afterall he was HER baby.
    
    Unfortunately, I think government often attempts to step in on
    tragedies such as this, and think that by passing a law, making a court
    judgement or punishing someone, that this kind of tragic accident will
    no longer happen.  It just ain't so.  It was an accident. Yes, I think
    the mother was negligent, she should not have been driving, she should
    not have been drinking.  But these things happen, and no amount of law
    making will prevent them.
    
    Ultimately we are all responsible for only our own actions.  That woman
    has one hellish memory to live with.
    

    Do you mean like coming up with a new process (here at DEC) to deal
    with a situation that was caused because someone didn't follow the
    existing process?  As if a better process would somehow eliminate
    the inconsistencies, personal preferences and problems, etc., of human
    beings?

    From Ellen Goodman's column in the Boston Globe, March 29:
    
    "In 1990, the very words 'fetal protection' have taken on a meaning in
    real life that is nearly as chilling as 'The handmaid's Tale' is on the
    screen.  They are used now to pit fetus against the woman.  Indeed,
    when we talk about ptoecting the fetus, the woman is now designated as
    its enemy.
    
    "No case makes this more evident than the true story that will be
    retold before the Supreme Court.... brought by eight women who were
    forced to choose between their fertility and their jobs.
    
    "The Leadworker's Tale began back in 1982 when [Johnson Controls, Inc.,
    in Milwaukee] banned 'women with childbearing capacity' from work in
    jobs that involved high lead exposure.... another example of 'the
    rights of women versus the fetus.'  Once again, woman against her womb. 
    But it is not as simple, not as stark as that.
    
    "By any measure, Johnson Controls, Inc., is less interested in fetal
    protection from lead than in self-protection from liability suits.  If
    they win this case, any woman 'with childbearing capacity' could be
    banned from jobs as diverse as those of flight attendant and
    silicon-chip maker.  Some 20 million industrial jobs could be closed to
    women whether or not they planned to get pregnant.
    
    "So in many ways, The Leadworker's Tale goes to the very heart of the
    old question:  Is a woman's life from 12 to 50 to be governed by the
    possibility of pregnancy?
    
    "The appeals court that upheld the Johnson policy said yes and based
    their reasoning on a profound mistrust.  They said, in effect, that a
    woman 'might somehow rationally discount this clear risk' to her fetus. 
    They defended a policy to fuard any potential fetus against all fertile
    women.
    
    In contrast, another judge -- the Reagan appointed conservative Frank
    Easterbrook -- wrote in a stinging dissent, 'No legal or ethical
    principle, compels or allows Johnson to assume that women are less able
    than men to make intelligent decisions about the welfare of the next
    generation...'
    
    "....Another dissenting judge compared the relative prospects of a
    'pregnant woman, unemployed or working for minimum wage ... ill-housed,
    fed and doctored' to that of her pregnant sister at Johnson and asked:
    'Whose fetus is a greater risk?'
    
    "And what of the father?  A baby's health, like the baby itself, is the
    product of both parents.  Male exposure to lead, research suggests,
    also affects their offspring.  The passion to 'protect' fertile women
    doesn't extend to men...
    
    "In the fantasyland of Gilead, after all, men were not tested for
    interfility, fertile women were not free and the countryside was a
    wasteland.
    
    "In America, 'fetal protection policies' protect women out of their
    jobs and leave men at risk to their health.  But worst of all, the
    comforting myth leaves companies free to do their dirty business."
    

    
    
    	an 8 and 1/2 month "fetus" is a child...............
    
    	reproductive rights....nonsense!
    

    in re .16
    
    it is true that a fetus at 8 1/2 months can live on its own
    with little or no medical intervention...although until it
    is born it is not yet a child. I doubt that anyone in this
    file would contradict that statement..
    
    but it is to me, totally unconnected to the second sentence in
    your note..
    
    how does a biological fact about the development of a fetus
    in any way make reproductive rights 'nonsense' ?
    
    are you just joining this discussion to throw out 'fighting words'
    or are you seriously interested in discussion.
    
    Bonnie J
    =wn= comod

    I think the 'nonsense' remark was in reply to .0 where the
    lawyer called the court decision a victory for reproductive
    rights. It wasn't. At *some* point the woman is not just
    carrying a fetus, and owes the forthcoming child respect
    and protection. (Don't know how to set the 'when?' but 
    that lawyer saying, in essence, that an 8.5 months-old fetus 
    is still abortable, made me cringe.)
    
    At some point, to maintain credibility, the pro-choice movement
    is going to have to take a hard look at the issue of when a
    fetus becomes a child, and at what point is that unborn child 
    owed the same care as a born one. 

    re .18
    
    You'll never get total agreement on that issue.  My personal view
    is that a child is a child with rights when it is born.  Otherwise
    it is still part of my body, therefore my rights reign.  But to
    others, they might not see it that way.  It's far too personal and
    judgemental of a situation to have everyone sit down and agree what
    is what when.
    
    I don't think anyone is going to find a happy compromise.
    
    ---kim

    
    	If pro-choice advocates want the government to stay out of the
    abortion issue, they must accept the alternative. Don't expect the
    government to pay for them. 
    
    	It is against the laws of God and Mankind to kill another human.
    When death occurs through the action of another, we penalize that
    other person. The penalty is paid for by taxing those that the person
    committed crimes against, but is acceptable. The victim had his/her
    rights taken away by the perpertrator as a willful act. An accident
    is due to an unsafe act or unsafe condition. When an accident occurs
    the person who is responsible gets sued under 'normal' conditions
    because it's their fault. There is a very, very real legal dilema
    being nurtured. If this woman shouldn't be prosecuted for the loss
    of life due to her negligence, then why should companies and
    individuals be prosecuted for accidents that are their fault?? Because
    it has to do with this "right of the womb" is should be excepted??? 
    
    	In the case of this mother who lost the "fetus" at 8-1/2 months
    because of her inappropriate actions, she will pay whatever penalty
    is required under law for her actions while intoxicated. She will
    pay physcologically for her lost fetus. That will probably cause
    her to do one of two things. It will cause her to quit drinking
    and pick up her life and go on. Or she will become a worse drinker
    and possibly kill someone else. 
    
    	You can't have it both ways. 
    
    Ken

    Please remember to discuss abortion in the abortion topic (I believe
    it's topic 183), and follow the guidelines in 183.779. 
    
    Thank you
    
    -Jody
    

    It is a tough question to which I do not pretend to know the answer.
    
    I do remember applauding the cases wherein murderers who had killed
    a pregnant women were charged with 2 counts.  Then when they killed
    only the fetus, they were charged with murder or manslaughter. From
    that precedent it's not very far to charging the mother with a crime
    for some such actions.
    
    It seems logical to me that filing murder or manslaughter charges
    in both cases is at least a consistent view of law and IF the mother
    should never be charged for a felony in such a case then neither should
    a non-mother criminal.
    
    I think the tough point is, as it always has been, where do we draw
    the line and set statutes?
                  
    ed

    My preference is that the rules currently used to determine death be
    reversed to determine life. That would center around brain activity.
    
    Marge

    re: inconsistency on part of pro-life advocates.
    
    Kim, you make a good point.  I believe that all life is to be valued,
    whether the result of a violent act or not. How incredibly unselfish of
    a mother who has conceived as a result of an act of violence to bring
    that life to maturation and birth.  
    
    On the other side, the mother has been through an extreme trauma.  If
    bearing the child would prolong that trauma, can she be excused for
    wanting to abort? to end this trauma that has been imposed on her? This
    is where the inconcsistency comes in and why pro-life people are split
    on the issue of rape and incest.  This is where the balance between
    fetal rights and maternal rights is in the grey area. 
    
    Marge

    re -1  It sounds to me like you're saying some pro-life people believe
    that a woman "earns more points", (or the fetus loses them), if the
    woman has sufferred a certain degree of "trauma".
    
    Who determines the kind or degree of trauma necessary for this and 
    has it been decided that past trauma, (rape or incest), is more relevant 
    to the decision than present or future traumas such as poverty, de-
    pendence or disease?  Is trauma defined only as something a woman
    suffers directly at the hands of a specific man?  

    Some allow for abortion in cases of rape or incest as a form of
    self-defense, the same way they allow for war.  Check out the
    Christian notes file if you are interested in this line of reasoning.
    
    Nancy

    I don't know that there's a tally on "points" here, Sandy... the point I
    was trying to make is that the rape/incest issue is not only difficult
    for pro-choice people; it is also difficult for pro-life people.  On
    one side, if you are to value each life, then what's the difference if
    it came as a result of rape or incest?  On the other hand, if you feel
    as I do that responsibility plays a key role then you delineate between
    the life conceived as the result of a consensual act and that conceived
    as the result of non-consensual violence (which is traumatic btw).
    
    It is the degree of consent, not the degree of trauma which is
    important IMHO.
    
    regards,
    Marge

 I think a case can sometimes be made that a given rape victim would be stripped 
of her mental/emotional health if _required_ to carry the product of a rape
to term, and it would be tantamount to killing the person she once was. In that 
case, perhaps the termination of her pregnancy could even be justified by/to
pro-lifers.

 the Doctah

    Again, Kim, the key is not trauma, but consent, that is the delineator. 
    Again, IMHO.
    
    regards,
    Marge
    
    

    Children conceived by consenting adults are not granted more rights
    than children conceived by rape.  No one would say it should be
    legal to abuse a child conceived by rape.  So, how can anyone who truly
    believes that an embryo is the equivalent of a child believe that
    abortion is ever right?
    IMO, saying that abortion is allowable under certain conditions
    reveals that the real motivation opposing abortion is what I've
    always thought - not concern for children but a desire to punish
    and control women.

    re: 32
    
    Steve, I don't think abortion is ever right; I think it is excusable if
    the life was conceived as a result of force rather than as the result
    of a consensual act.  I don't hear any pro-life advocates espousing
    abortion as being right and wonderful under any circumstances.  In this
    notesfile, you will find lots of pro-choice advocates stating similar
    things about their views...that they don't think they would choose to
    have an abortion, but wish to reserve that right to others.  I think
    you will agree that there is a parallel here... that pro-life advocates
    can claim that it is not "right" but rather "acceptable" or even the
    "lesser of the evils".  If pro-choice advocates (please notice that I
    do not use the slur "so-called") believe they can believe one thing for
    themselves and another for the population at large, would you deny
    pro-life advocates that?
    
    regards,
    Marge

    re .33:  
    
    I'm probably dense, Kim, but since it was Sandy who raised the points
    system, I'd prefer she defend it....  Please forgive me if I'm missing
    your point.
    
    foggy dew,
    Marge

    [Sigh].  Sometimes I feel ignore and I try to accept it with good grace
    :} but if you're gonna continue along this vein, *please* note the
    alternate explanation given in .27!

    moderator response
    
    
    if you are going to discuss abortion take the discussion to the
    abortion topic and follow the guidelines for that note.
    
    Bonnie j
    =wn= comod

    Authors should take good care, when drafting future notes for this
    string, not to (a) make slurring references to the opposing side or its
    adherents; or (b) have any passage functionally equivalent to "the
    pro-mumble side are fratz about foetal rights and thereby reveal
    themselves to be pond scum".  
    
    Such notes will be summarily deleted as strayed, out-of-bounds
    abortion-topic notes if detected.
    
    						=maggie

    re .33 (marge)
    
    My apologies to you and Sandy if I seem to have spoken for her.
    My intent was simply to voice my opinion on your question.  Such
    that you prefer Sandy's input, I have deleted my notes to alleviate
    further confusion and since I guess they were more pointed towards
    abortion itself rather than fetal rights (a very grey area in between).
    
    

    Kim, I don't think there is any apology necessary.  I simply don't like
    to try to defend someone else's concept.  
    
    grins,
    Marge

    Maggie, I do feel the need to apologize for prolonging the discussion
    unnecessarily in this topic.  If anyone would like to continue, I'll be
    happy to do so in 183.*.
    
    regards,
    Marge

RE: 1053.32 (HKFINN::KALLAS)

>    Children conceived by consenting adults are not granted more rights
>    than children conceived by rape.  No one would say it should be
>    legal to abuse a child conceived by rape.  So, how can anyone who truly
>    believes that an embryo is the equivalent of a child believe that
>    abortion is ever right?


	That's a perspective I've never heard before in discussions of the 
	"no_abortions_except_in_the_case_of_rape_and_incest" philosophy.
	It appears inconsistent to me also.

							nancy b.

    Re .32, .42:
    
    > So, how can anyone who truly believes that an embryo is the
    > equivalent of a child believe that abortion is ever right?
    
    There is such a view that I came across in a philosophy class:  The
    fetus, while human, does not have the right to affect the mother's body
    without the mother's consent.  (Note that this only answers the
    immediate question above; it would still be inconsistent for a person
    to believe abortion was okay in some circumstances and not in others --
    the above view is only consistent for pro-choice.)
    
    
    				-- edp

    re:.42
    
    Nancy,
    
    I've used that argument myself on many occasions.
    
    Kate
    

    re: -1
    
    aw, shucks! and I thought I thought it up myself!
    
    Sue (not Steve) Kallas
    
    ps. thanks, EDP, for pointing out that this argument can
    only logically be used by those of us who are pro-choice -
    and, yes, I will take this to the abortion note if I can summon
    the energy and stomach for it.