From: mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What's EASY and DIFFICULT in abortion.
Date: 10 Sep 1992 12:14:52 -0400
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. - Vienna, Va.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gilligan.east.sun.com

In article <43655@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:
>In article <18ng0pINN37g@gilligan.East.Sun.COM> mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori) writes:
>
>Pro-choicers may be neutral when it comes to whether or not a woman *should* 
>have an abortion.
>But, in my experience, they are not neutral when it comes to whether or not
>a woman *is permitted* to have an abortion.
>
>Both pro-lifers and pro-choicers are prepared to resort to either
>laws or constitutions to back their views on this permission aspect - AND to 
>make the other side obey those views.
>

Aha... That's where we differ.

The only reason I see for abortion to be made a constitutional
right is that there are those that would have it taken away.

If pro-lifers would keep their beliefs to themselves, I would
not support a constitutional amendment, or any other form of
legislation. Since they seem to want everyone to live by their
rules, those of us who do not care to are forced to fight for
our freedoms.

I do not wish to force an abortion on anyone, I just want to
make sure that my wife and I have that choice, should the day
come that we have to think about it.

>>My support for the right to abortion being written into law stems
>>from my desire to prevent others from foisting their opinions of
>>how I should live my life onto me legally. 
>
>Of course.  And that is a reflection of your values.
>
>But surely you must see that to someone who rejects your values, such a law
>is an imposition.  It is, in effect, an example of the very foisting that you 
>wanted to prevent.

How so? As I said above, I'm not trying to force anyone to do
anything. I'm just asking that pro-lifers keep their collective
noses out of my affairs.

A constitutional amendment granting the right to abort is not
an intrusive thing. It simply says "You have the right to, should
you choose to." It doesn't say "Under these circumstances, you
must.".

>
>Now this is not an argument against you trying to enact such laws.  Far from it.
>All laws "foist" on someone.  If that wasn't the case there would be little
>point for the law.

No, good legislation protects the rights of others.
(Oh boy... Here comes some nonsense about how fetuses have
rights, too...)

>I am arguing that it is not "foisting" in general that you oppose, but 
>foisting of *a particular* value - that of the foetus.

I oppose the foisting of values via legislation, period.
Morality legislation is a crock, pure and simple. You either
believe something, or you don't. If you don't hold a particular
value, then no law will make you respect it.

I think the reason the abortion battle is so heated is that
those of us who don't believe in "Leave It To Beaver" values
are sick of being pushed around by the so-called moral majority,
and this is where we draw the line. I know that's my personal
feeling on it.

-- Mike

------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinion, not my employer's