Expanding the Public Sphere through Computer ... - ResearchGate

APPENDIX A. TALK.ABORTION: AUGUST 9, 1994 126
>>>anti-choicers say that it has that right.
>>
>>Incorrect. The fetus is not a "trespasser", since it lacks the capacity to
>>have a criminal intent -- a 5-year-old is likewise incapable of being a
>>"trespasser". The fetus is at least as much a victim of circumstance as the
>>woman is. The onset and continuation of pregnancy creates no "aggressor" and
>>no "victim", in a criminal-justice sense.
>
>If the fetus is inside the woman’s body and she doesn’t want it in there,
>she has the right to have it evicted,
You said "trespass" before, now you’re switching to "eviction"? Very well
then...
Under what statute may "eviction" proceedings be brought against a minor who
is not legally competent to enter into a leasehold in the first place?
Or are you using the word in a strange way?
- Kevin
Article 7
Reference 161432
From regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com
Date Tue, Aug 2, 1994 9:24 AM
In article dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (ZZYZX) writes:
>Or maybe, and I realize that this is just a stretch, maybe the pro-life
>movement really believes abortion is murder. Personally I am
>pro-choice. However I know a lot of intelligent pro-lifers, many
>of whom are not religious, have sex, and don’t have a hidden agenda of
>controlling all women. They just happen to believe that abortion is
>muder.
Do they happen to believe that self-defense is murder, too? Do they happen
to believe that organ seizure is "ok"? Do they happen to support the
connection of dying violinists to people who protest, as well? They may
well think it’s murder, but did they stop thinking there? What do they
think about forcing the woman to undertake a risk she has no willingness
to undertake? About forcing women to support a fetus against their will?
Do they think about that part? At all? Or do they figure "too bad"?
Do you suppose they have the same attitude about other technological failures?
>Believe it or not,
>different people can come to different opinions about an issue without
>one side being evil or mislead.
Perhaps. But are the pro-lifers willing to acknowledge that people of
good faith might have an opinion different from them, and *not* act to
impose their opinion upon others? After all, pro-choicers aren’t forcing
pro-lifers to have abortions. They aren’t forcing pro-lifers to do much
of anything. Pro-choicers do, however, fully expect to be able to govern
their own lives according to their own beliefs, and are running into
roadblocks erected by these non-evil non-mislead persons who have different
opinions.