From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-abortion's view on life
Summary: Invoking criminal law is a dangerous statist intrusion
Date: 13 Aug 92 01:16:47 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

News was down, so I apologize for the lateness of this reply.  If I
had an ounce of discretion, I wouldnt post it.


In article <1992Jul30.080109.17499@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:

>So on the record, when do the pro-abortion people think human life begins?


Human life began millions of years ago, and has somehow managed to survive 
until the present, by passing living cells down through the generations.

Sperm are living human cells, as are ova, as are heart cells, as are brain 
cells.  An embryo represents yet another form of human cellular life,
which holds the unique distinction of potentially becoming a new human 
being, *given the appropriate environmental conditions.*  That
environment is (so far) only found within the uterus.  

The uterus is part of the woman's body, part of a sentient, self-aware
legally-established human being.  The responsible sovereign of the 
uterus, and of all the area within the woman is the woman.  This
is a very basic concept of self-ownership which is deeply rooted
in our culture.
  
In reality, the woman is the only one who can decide if the
embryo will continue to develop toward full human stature.
She may abdicate this responsibility, and let nature take its course,
but she is still the sovereign.  As much as we might dislike her
decision to make her womb inhospitable to the embryo, or to
destroy the fetus, it is her decision to make.  Regardless what
society or the father may argue, she has the final say in the matter.

If she became pregnant foolishly or willingly or due to bad luck or rape
is really just incidental to the decision that has to be made.  *The 
circumstances of conception are only as relevant as she deems it.*
She may have made a bad decision getting pregnant in the first place, 
but that is not a good reason to reduce her capacity to
now make a good decision regarding the pregnancy.

People need to take responsibility in all aspects of their lives, but 
it is fruitless to try to punish them for past indiscretions.  It
simply doesnt work.  

It is irrelevant what the "pro-lifers" (or anyone else, including the
courts) believe is the point at which human life begins.
It should be noted that in some cultures, the baby is not considered
to have become a member of the community until it survives 28 days
ex utero.  Indeed, the question may not EVER be fully resolvable in a 
legal sense.  What matters is: *Who makes the call?*  

Our traditions do not define the beginnings of human life, but they
*do* define the hegemony of the individual adult.  That is why
the vast majority is pro-choice, even if they personally are
repulsed by abortion.  Govt oppression of this choice is seen
as a greater evil. 

Now, if the "pro-lifers" would 
restrict themselves to trying to convince each woman that abortion is
unethical and disgusting, I would have no problem with that.  Moral suasion
is perfectly acceptable, even if I disagree with that particular moral view.

But when they *petition the government for laws* which would invade the
sovereignty of the woman, (and, by extension, all citizens),
in order to impose their own particular moral view,
no matter how well intentioned and self-righteous they feel, 
then I will rise up and VIGOROUSLY fight
them every step of the way, and so will many other Americans.  

Hopefully they will go back to using moral suasion, instead
of invoking legal sanctions, much as the Prohibitionists had to do
after the end of Prohibition.



As to the legal rights of children, no one claims that newborns have
the identical legal rights as adults (except perhaps a few anarchists).
Legal rights are conferred *by degrees,* in all societies, including
our own.   We would agree 
that a newborn should be protected from being murdered, but, as
a practical matter, the parents will be providing the actual protection,
much as the woman provided the womb.  All the state can do is punish
people after the fact.  

I recall a case in Chicago where the father of a hopelessly brain-dead 
newborn, caught in the legal battle over who could pull the plug,
pulled a gun, took the baby off of life support, and held him in his
arms as the baby quietly died.  I dont think he was charged, except on
a weapons charge.  
  
So here the father was allowed to make the call, even after birth had
occurred.  I realize that hard cases do not make good law.  Perhaps this
is a sign that the law should maintain more of a hands-off attitude, 
and leave the hard decisions up to the blood relatives, as a delegate
or surrogate of society.  
 
Of what possible value is criminal law in these situations, except
to encourage the state to meddle with our private lives?
  

--Al Date  

The only thing to be intolerant of is intolerance.

These opinions are my own, but they are subject to change at any time.
Newsgroups: ba.politics