From: bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Back from Texas - 1 of 2
Date: 7 Apr 92 13:55:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: bmw.1992Apr7.135505.21575
Reply-To: bmc@mayo.edu
Organization: Mayo Biomedical Imaging Resource

In article <31067@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk>, tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:
|> 
|> 	BUT, all legislation does that - potentially.  The value of
|> 	an adult human is not *PROVABLE*.  It is a matter of opinion.
|> 	To someone who believes that women have an inherently lower 
|> 	value than men, enslaving women is not bad (and vice versa).
|> 
|> THEREFORE SURELY, I demand, anti-abortion laws are no worse than anti murder
|> laws.           

|> As far as I can see, here is why Adrienne etc oppose anti-abortion legislation:
|> 
|> 1. Anti-abortion legislation would compel a woman to obey something that she 
|>    did not herself believe in (or face the consequences).
|> 
|> 	BUT, all legislation does that - potentially.  
|> 	To someone who wants to kill someone else, and who believes that such 
|> 	action is acceptable, then our murder laws compel them to desist.
|>

Legislation does not compel, rather it provides for penalties
should an action, deemed inappropriate by society, be performed
by an individual that falls under that society's jurisdiction.

It is hoped that the threat of penalties will prevent then individual
members of society from stepping outside of the approved boundries of
that society.
 
|> THEREFORE SURELY, I demand, anti-abortion laws are no worse than anti murder
|> laws.
|>

They would be no worse, and no better. They would however be difficult
to enforce without violating a few established principles such as
doctor-patient confidentiality.
 
|> 
|> AH BUT, explain Adrienne etc:
|> 	(N.B. THIS, is the VERY IMPORTANT BIT.  THIS, is the keystone of
|> 	 Adrienne's stance)
|> 
|> 3. If I impose on people by law, then I may be next to get imposed on.
|>    So finally, it is not a matter of rightness or wrongness.  It is a matter 
|>    of fear.  I must restrain from enacting any law which Adrienne doesn't want,
|>    because otherwise I'll be next!

Your argument falls slightly, since you feel that laws comple actions, rather
then codify opinions. What anti-murder laws codify is a concencous (not a 
majority) opinion that the willful termination of born human life is wrong. To
reinforce this opinion, sanctions are imposed on those proven to have violated
these laws, with the strengh of the sanctions modified to be appropriate to 
the degree of "wrongness" of the crime.

Anti-abortion laws are an attempt to codify an opinion that women
do not have the right to self-determination. By implication, this reinforces
an attitude that there are distinctions between men and women based on gender.

It is not fear that should restrain you from enacting such laws, but rather
a sense of equality.
 
|> 	BUT, all legislation is like that.  
|> 	All legislation imposes.

Not all legislation imposes bigotted prejudices. In fact there is a trend
to remove such legislation, because society is coming to realize that such
legislation is virtually unenforceable, unequitable and potentially damaging
to its survival.

|> 	All legislation imposes in order to achieve an end the worth of which
|> 		is unprovable.

Thus, the American Jim Crow laws imposed in order to achive an end that had
some worth? What worth would that be?

|> 	All legislation is dangerous in that it imposes on people who have
|> 		the democratic right to impose on *me*.
|>

All legislation is dangerous, in that in channels power to away from the individual
in general and to a specific individual. Legislation is fair if society can come
to a concencous that the whole wishes to give up that power. 
 
|> So what is different about proposed anti-abortion laws?
|> 
|> What is it about them, that makes their opponents call themselves "pro-CHOICE"?

Because with out them, individuals are free to make a CHOICE based on personal
belief. By enacting them, you eliminate that CHOICE and force upon society a
belief system that is not held by all members of that society.

|> What is it about them that makes their opponents criticise them as "religious"?

Because, in most cases, they are based on a formal religion, typically a patriarchally
ruled religion, and not on beliefs held by all members of society. They also tend
to ignore the tenants & beliefs of faiths outside of the scope of the particular
religion of the persons proposing the legislation.
|> 
|> 	BUT, all legislation does that - potentially.  The value of
|> 	an adult human is not *PROVABLE*.  It is a matter of opinion.
|> 	To someone who believes that women have an inherently lower 
|> 	value than men, enslaving women is not bad (and vice versa).
|> 
|> THEREFORE SURELY, I demand, anti-abortion laws are no worse than anti murder
|> laws.           

|> The fact is, they are NO DIFFERENT. 
|>

They are very different.
	1) there is no concencous as to the correctness of the legislation
	2) they codify a discriminatory difference based on gender
	3) they prohibit the complete self-determination of women (an action
	   not prohibited to men)
 

-- 
--Bruce

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
				Gandhi
---------------------------------------------------
bmc@mayo.edu	(507) 284-3288	fax: (507) 284-9623
Mayo Foundation, 200 1st St SW,	Rochester MN 55905
---------------------------------------------------
#include <std/disclaimer>             ARS -- WD9CKW