From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: The issue is abortion, not choice
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:53:05 GMT

In <adams.728070069@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:

>>For those who are personally opposed to abortion, but don't want to force their
>>opinions on anyone, and are thus "pro-choice", could you please explain why you
>>are against abortion, if not for the reason that it causes the death of an 
>>unborn child, and if it causes the death of an innocent human, why do you act 
>>in favor of allowing that to continue?

>Basically, my objections to abortion are based soley on my religious point
>of view.  Given that I've formed this view soley on religion, I don't feel
>that I can impose it on other people who do not accept the same set of
>religiouns 'truths' that I do.

>As a member of a society which was founded on the concepts of basic
>liberty, I believe that each person is entitled to do what they think best
>so long as it does not interfere with another person's rights.  

Ah-hah!

>When it
>does, the government (legal system) is the usual arbitrator, though there are 
>other methods of arbitration.

>In any event, our laws protect the rights of citizens and aliens living
>here.  Clearly, all born persons have a demonstrable set of rights that 
>are protected.  Prior to viability, there is, as far as I can tell, little
>that would give a fetus liberty interests that outweighed the woman's.
>After viability, there are more questions, and the conflicts in liberty
>ineterests need to be resolved.

What's viability got to do with it? People requiring dialysis aren't 
"viable."

>I come down on the side of the woman to exercise her choice prior to
>viability, and believe that post-viability abortions should only be
>performed to save the life of the mother.  This is how I'd like to
>see the law handle the sitution - no restrictions prior to viabilty, and
>heavy restrictions after (ie only to save the life of the mother).

>But, if the choice is between no abortions and late-term abortions, I'll
>take the option of making abortions available.

>I've always said that law will never, ever stop abortions, no more than 
>prohibition stopped drining, or the War on Drugs(tm) drug use.  I prefer
>education (sex & birth control), adoption, counselling, availability of
>birth control, etc, etc.  All of these combined will reducde the number of
>abortions

But not "stop" them -- nor (maybe) reduce them as much as pro-life laws.

>...and isn't that what the pro-life goal should be?

>What I'm trying to say is that 'pro-life' people are fighting the wrong
>way.  Making abortion illegal just won't work.  You need to fight the cause
>(poverty, lack of knowledge, cost, etc, etc).  Until you adress the basic
>causes, you'll be fighting a losing battle.

One might argue the same about infanticide.

> -Steve
>--
>  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
>                         -------------------
>   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
>   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558

Mark Pundurs
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57481 talk.politics.misc:69369 talk.religion.misc:27342 misc.legal:23155