From: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Back from Texas - 1 of 2
Date: 6 Apr 92 15:10:32 GMT
Reply-To: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

And now the moment you've all been waiting for ... I'm back from Texas, and
I've moved my office from Glasgow to Edinburgh.  I've also noted that
in my new site, t.a posts are not expired as frequently as they were in
Glasgow (thats what my expiry tests were for Drieux).

So, Adrienne, concerning your opposition to anti-abortion legislation...

Adrienne, and a bunch of others, have frequently criticised proposed 
anti-abortion legislation, not on the grounds that the foetus wasn't a person,
but simply on the grounds that REGARDLESS of what the foetus was, it had
no right to be where it was.

The nature of the foetus is, to them, irrelevant.

So in answer to my questions, "Even *if* the foetus was identical-bar-location
to a baby...", they still said that they would condone abortion.

OK, lets look at this further - in particular, I want to focus in on that
VERY IMPORTANT BIT that I mentioned before I left for the US.

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.

THEREFORE SURELY, I demand, anti-abortion laws are no worse than anti murder
laws.

AH BUT, explain Adrienne etc:

2. The compulsion imposed by anti-abortion legislation is a result of a
   a system of unprovable beliefs.  These are often criticised as being
   "religious" beliefs.
   So it is not simply that the law would compel - but further that it
   would compel for NO GOOD REASON.

	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.           

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!

	BUT, all legislation is like that.  
	All legislation imposes.
	All legislation imposes in order to achieve an end the worth of which
		is unprovable.
	All legislation is dangerous in that it imposes on people who have
		the democratic right to impose on *me*.

So what is different about proposed anti-abortion laws?

What is it about them, that makes their opponents call themselves "pro-CHOICE"?
What is it about them that makes their opponents criticise them as "religious"?
The fact is, they are NO DIFFERENT. 

If they are to be shunned because they may open the door to laws that restrict
me - then I should also shun laws against rape, murder, robbery - because 
somewhere out there maybe a rapist, a murderer and a robber will enact
an anti-tommy law.

It is true that anti-abortion laws will force some women to complete their
pregnancies.

Now is the only argument against that, that I'd better watch my back!?

tommy
Newsgroups: talk.abortion