From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: a little slavery is "harmless" (was Re: "Harmless Slavery")
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:32:19 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA


dp>In article <1992Apr9.044638.6975@wuecl.wustl.edu> dgp@venus.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
rb><17530@oasys.dt.navy.mil> (Ronald Bense) writes:

rb> NO! NO! NO!  NEVER!

rb> My mistake for not being clear, but there was more in this post than
rb> the above. The line of reasoning (at least in my mind :) was that allowing
rb> a reasonable amount of time before abortions were restricted to only
rb> health reasons or other extenuating circumstances (3-4 months) as preventing
rb> the "enslavement" argument. ...

rb> I hope this clarifies my previous unclear comments.

dp>So you think it's ok to enslave someone *after* a "reasonable amount
dp>of time"?

I'm not Ronald, but my answer would be no.

dp>This is getting about as clear as mud.

dp>Do you or do you not agree with the following statement?

dp>Forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy against her wishes is
dp>a form of slavery.

Yes.

dp>Yes or no?  If you agree with this statement, then note that you are
dp>advocating restricting abortion after a certain point in pregnancy.
dp>For women past this point in pregnancy, you want to use the force
dp>of law to make them continue their pregnancies.  If you agree
dp>with the statement, then you must concede that you are advocating
dp>enslaving these women.

Lucky for me I support a woman's right to procure an abortion right
up until the delivery date.  I currently do not support enslaving a
woman during any period of her pregnancy.

dp>Now, you will probably get lucky, and there will be no such women
dp>who suddenly, in their 7th month or so, get an urge to put an end
dp>to their pregnancy.  So you won't have to enslave anybody.  But
dp>the point is you have expressed a willingness to do so.

Enslavement of the woman is not the only reason I oppose restrictive
abortion legislation any period during the pregnancy.  I would oppose
making abortions restrictive during the 3rd tri-mester, because I
have yet to see that we have a problem.  Legislation just for the
sake of legislation is generally silly and often times dangerous.  I
have trouble imagining a law that would make it impossible for a
woman to get an abortion for reasons many of us feel are trivial and
will not impose un-necessary difficulty for woman who many of us
believe would be getting abortions for justified reasons.  If you
can tell me how such a law could be worded and convince me there is
a problem with women getting third tri-mester abortions, I may be
willing to change my position.

I guess I can see your next response.  It would seem I would be
willing to enslave women for some period if you could convince me
of the justification.  I guess that is true.  I could also see myself
supporting enslavement such as the draft or community service
requirements if the justification is there.  I just don't think we
should casually allow such enslavement.  Any time some one feels
we should give up rights, we must be very careful and insist on
justification for their reasons.  Rights should never be given up
lightly.

dp>If you do not agree with the statement, then kindly do not refer
dp>to pro-lifers as "enslavers of women."  I don't recall that you
dp>ever have, so please don't take that as an accusation.  Simply
dp>drop the "slavery" angle altogether in the pro-choice argument, and
dp>defend abortion liberty directly.

But since I agree I guess I get to continue to use the "slavery" angle.
I defend abortion in many ways and one of them is hopefully making
people realize what the cost of protecting each fetus is.  Its possible
many will feel that the cost of enslaving the woman is worth the cost,
but I want to make damn sure they realize the trade off.

dp>|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |


Dan King