From: wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck)
Subject: Re: Bill, admit the point before changing the subject.
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:03:04 GMT

In <1992Jul15.142259.29343@eco.twg.com> chall@eco.twg.com 
   (Charles Don Hall) writes: >>
In <1992Jul14.203938.23287@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >

>>>>So, what it looks like to me is that pro-lifers want fetuses to
>>>>be carried to term, but they don't want to pay. They want the 
>>>>pregnant women to pay for them. They demand something for nothing.  
>>>>They are irresponsible. They set bad examples for children.

>>>As I indicated, I'm willing to pay, so the rest is a non-sequitor.
>>>And if it weren't, your logic would still require great leaps.

>>Of course it requires great leaps. That's the point. It requires just
>>as many great leaps as "women who get abortions are irresponsible
>>and set a bad example for children", which is the statement that
>>got me into this thread to begin with.

>You're "willing" to pay? Who's stopping you?

I thought we were talking about federal (or state) subsidies for
such programs.  Are you willing to pay?

>And who do you intend to vote for in November? The candidate who
>supports maternity leave, subsidized day care, and abortion rights,
>or the candidate that opposes all three? What is more important to you?

I won't be voting for Clinton.  We have enough fiscal woes as it is.
I rather liked Perot (despite his pro-choice position), who might
have provided us with something resembling a real budget.  

>>>Also, what do you mean when you say that women shouldn't be allowed to
>>>"*abitrarily*" destroy the fetus? 

>>Based solely on her personal valuation of the fetus.

>Well, why doesn't her valuation matter? 

If the fetus has no intrinsic value, then her valuation is all that
matters.  I simply think otherwise.

>You've argued that the fetus doesn't have rights, but should be 
>protected because of its value to society. But carrying an unwanted 
>fetus to term is a terrible physical and psychological burden. 

On the one hand, you're saying that fetuses merit no consideration
beyond the relative value placed on them by women, and on the other
you've decided that unwanted pregnancies are de facto terrible burdens.
I thought women were the best judge of such things...?

>Society doesn't normally force burdens like this onto people. 

There are tens of thousands of homeless people roaming our streets.
I think they would disagree with you for the most part.

>The only remotely analogous thing I can think of is the military draft, 
>and that has sufficiently many loopholes that you can avoid it if 
>you're motivated. 

Pregnancy can also be avoided "if you're motivated".

>Why won't you let women get "academic deferments" if they're in 
>school? Why won't you let them "conscientiously object"?

Why base your questions on an analogy that has only "remote" 
applicability?  They seem irrelevant (or silly).

>>>Can you give an example of the
>>>"worst" reason that a woman could have and still be permitted an
>>>abortion, or the "best" reason she could have and still be denied one?

>>Difficult cases would (in my schema) require an examination of the
>>relevant interests involved to determine what constitutes an "undue
>>burden" as balanced against a "compelling interest" (in fetal life).  
>>I generally oppose mental health justifications because they're often
>>vague.  Stress is unacceptable since we all have some of that.  Risk
>>of chronic psychosis seems acceptable, though.  It gets greyer and
>>more difficult in the middle (risk of recurrent Major Depression, et 
>>al).  

>Well, I suppose the government can do a better job of judging than
>the woman herself. 

I don't think our government is staffed by mental health professionals.

>Maybe they should judge every pregnancy, and if
>the woman is risking death or chronic psychosis, then she should
>be FORCED to get an abortion. I mean, we don't allow people to
>commit suicide based on their personal valuation of their own lives.
>
>Or, the population could get too large, and the state could decide
>that it has a "compelling interest" in cutting the birth rate. In 
>this case, we would say that a woman can't arbitrarily CONTINUE a
>pregnancy on the basis of her personal valuation of the fetus.

Slippery slope time?  Perhaps then we should be equally concerned
that the arbitrary termination of fetal life will soon be extended
to comatose adults -- wait, it already has been.  Well, how about
handicapped newborns or the senile elderly.  They often represent
"terrible physical and psychological burdens" to those who must
care for them.  Why should the caretakers of such people be forced
to endure this hardship when their pregnant counterparts can simply
abort?  

Bill

Newsgroups: talk.abortion