From: parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Reproductive Freedom
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:00:45 GMT

jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar) writes:

>In article <Bz9JH7.MJz@cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
>presents the writings of the ACLU:

>> Published by the Department of Public Education
>> American Civil Liberties Union

>> ACLU Briefing Paper Number 15

>> The Right to Choose: A Fundamental Liberty

>Pro-Choice Loses a Round

>It used to be that you had a choice on whether to support abortion
>counseling.  Now, unless you have evaded the clutches of the United
>States Government, you no longer have that choice.  Within the space
>of a week, a judge declared the so-called ``gag rule'' invalid, and
>United States President-elect Bill Clinker announced that he would
>sustain such a policy.  This means that part of your toil is applied,
>by way of taxation, in support of abortion counseling, whether or not
>you would so choose on your own.

Part of everyone's tax money also goes to various military expenses.  In
particular an improportionate amount of funding for NATO operations in Europe
is covered by the US even though Europe is economically quite capable of
paying more for its own defense.  I do not wish for my tax money to get
wasted on military charity that isn't even needed, but I do not in my little
lonesome minority get to tell the government to stop sending extra support
to Europe.  There is this concept called "majority rule", maybe you've heard
of it?

>The irony is that many self-proclaimed ``pro-choice'' people consider
>this change to be a victory!

Hmmm, your choice on what the government does with your individual tax money
vs. other people's choice to find out about all the available options they
can chose from...  Gee tough call, NOT!

>> ---
>> What can I do to help protect reproductive choice? 
>> ---

>> You can help preserve the right to choose by urging
>> your Congressional representatives to support federal protection of this
>> right for all women, without exception, through the Freedom of Choice
>> Act and the Reproductive Health Equity Act, and by letting your state
>> legislators know that you support reproductive choice.

>Seeking government help to safeguard personal choice is like hiring
>the fox to guard the chickens.  The whole _purpose_ of democratic
>political government is to supplant _personal_ choice with
>_collective_ choice.

And we have collectively chosen to allow everyone to make their own decisions
with respect to abortion.  Too bad you can't accept it.

>> "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude.... shall exist within the United
>> States." 
>>                       -- The Thirteenth Amendment

>> The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution guarantees individuals
>> the right to personal autonomy, which means that a person's decisions
>> regarding his or her personal life are none of the government's business.

>If a person's toil is applied, without that person's consent, through
>taxation, toward an end that that person does not approve, how does
>this differ from slavery?

It is quite different from slavery.  In slavery certain people are subjected
to very different rules than others.  The slaves were treated as sub-people
and had no voice in government.  In taxation (which, in case you missed it was
allowed by one of those amendments--I forget which one) everyone is subject to
the same consistent rules.  The more you make, the more you have to give to
the government, for all the government does to protect your life and property.
If you believe in anarchy, well tough s**t; you're in the minority and the
rest of us don't want you violating our rights.

If you don't like paying taxes to the US government, you can always emmigrate
to some other country.  I'm sure you can find a country that won't pay for
the abortion counselling you are so opposed to.

>If civilization is to have a future, it must include widespread
>respect for simple human dignity: allowing the other person go his or
>her own separate way in peace.

But we won't *pay* a fraction of a fraction of our earnings to give that other
person some responsible guidance, so that they will not become an even
*greater* burden on society in the future; is that it?

>         ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar

-Rob
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty