From: noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan)
Subject: Who are you guys?
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 23:50:55 GMT

I'm still trying to get a handle on who the sides are in the abortion
debate.  The way I see it so far, there are four groups:

1) Those who are against abortion in all cases.

2) Those who are against abortion in general, but for it in some cases
   (rape, incest, probable death to mother).

3) Those who are against abortion for themselves, but its ok for others.

4) Those who hold that abortions are ok for everyone.


Now for my comments on each:

1) Those who are against abortion in all cases.

This seems logically consistent to me.  If you think abortion is murder,
and you are against it in all cases, then whether you are right or wrong,
you are at least *consistent*.  Why murder an innocent person to make
another person, admittedly a victim in some cases, feel better, right?


2) Those who are against abortion in general, but for it in some cases
   (rape, incest, probable death to mother).

Why is abortion wrong in only some cases?  Is the fetus a person?  If
it is, why is it ok to kill an innocent person to comfort a victim of
rape or incest.  I assume in the case of harm to the mother you treat
the fetus as an aggressor that can be killed to save the mother's life?


3) Those who are against abortion for themselves, but its ok for others.

Why is abortion wrong?  I have heard some say it is wrong according to
their religion, but they have no right to enforce their religion on
others.  This is, in itself, admirable.  Why does the religion say it is
wrong?  Because the fetus is a person?  If it is a person, why is it ok
for others to have abortions?  Because they don't believe it is a person?

If it is ok for others to have abortions because they don't "believe"
fetuses are persons, then why can't they own slaves if they "believe"
slaves aren't persons?  What if your religious beliefs tell you that
slavery is wrong, but other people believe otherwise?  What gives you
the right to impose your religious beliefs on them?  Do you have the
right to prevent slavery?  What if you try to prevent slavery by lobbying
your state to pass a law against it?

Do you have a moral imperative to lobby the legislature to abolish
slavery if you believe it to be wrong? 
Do you have a moral imperative to lobby the legislature to abolish
abortion if you believe it to be wrong?


4) Those who hold that abortions are ok for everyone.

This seems logically consistent to me.  If abortions are not wrong at
all, and you support abortion as a morally proper method of birth
control to be used when accidents occur with "conception control"
or when the potential parents change their mind, then whether you are
right or wrong, you are at least *consistent*.  Why all this fuss
about a simple medical procedure performed on the mother, right?


In summary, positions 1 and 4 seem logically consistent to me.
Positions 2 and 3 appear to me *at first glance* to need a little
tweaking to become consistent.  Perhaps someone can do a little
tweaking for me, eh?

Thanks,

Mike Noonan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism