From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: In defense of the supposedly indefensible (was Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?)
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:27:35 GMT

In article <80713@ut-emx.uucp>, zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mark Gansle) writes:
# There seems to me that there are four main positions on abortion:
# 
# 1) Abortion on demand: abortion is always OK through all nine mos. of
# pregnancy
# 2) Abortion until some arbitrary date (ie Roe v Wade) decided upon through
# political consensus or compromise
# 3) Abortion until date of viability, ie ability of fetus to live outside of
# womb
# 4) Abortion is always wrong (Note that this group has among it those who
# make exceptions for rape and incest because they feel sorrier for the mother
# than the child)
# 
# Let's examine these positions, shall we?
# 
# 1)  I think none but the most calloused among us can seriously believe that
# abortion up until live birth is acceptable, as this requires delivery to
# be a prerequisite to humanity/life.  How can on argue that 3 inches separates
# a child from rights and no rights?  (If anyone *does* support this position,
# I'd *love* to hear the logic involved).

[ The rest deleted ]

To me, the issue is not abortion -- it is abortion rights.  The fact
that my XY chromosome pair specifically dictated that my body not have
a uterus, pretty much makes any opinion I might have concerning
when an abortion should be permissible and when it shouldn't into an
intellectual exercise with no bearing on me personally.

As for your question: how can anyone argue that 3 inches separates a
child with rights from a fetus that doesn't?  I will demonstrate how I
resolve this question.

By definition, individual legal rights rest on the assumption that
individual persons can be identified and distinguished from those
creatures and things that are not persons.  The trouble is that human
reproduction is a gradual process and there simply isn't an obvious
event where a new person exists where a second before there wasn't
one.  If I start planting redwood trees in my backyard today, how many
will I have to plant and how tall will they have to grow before my
garden grows into a copse and then a forest?  It's a similar problem.

There must be a point at which individual rights are conferred upon a
new human individual, and because the reproductive process is a
gradual one, that point cannot be a natural one -- it *must* be
artificial.  The trick is picking the politically correct artificial
point.

I think rights should be conveyed upon individuals upon live birth --
call me a slave to the status quo if you feel the need, it's one of
the few aspects of the status quo I support -- simply because the
state need not abridge the rights of the mother to protect the rights
of a newborn, but it *must* abridge the rights of the mother to
protect the `rights' of a fetus.

Put simply, I believe that every woman has the right to control what
happens to her body, and if that means permitting women to have
abortions at nine months of pregnancy if they choose, then that's what
it means.

I find it rankling that you believe that this qualifies me for the
label `most callous among us.'


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

Help keep Las Vegas clean.  Eat your kill.
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.activism