From: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Back from Texas - 1 of 2
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:49:51 GMT
Reply-To: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

In article <1992Apr7.135505.21575@bmw.mayo.edu> bmc@mayo.edu writes:
>In article <31067@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk>, tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:
 
>|> THEREFORE SURELY, I demand, anti-abortion laws are no worse than anti murder
>|> laws.
>|>
>
>They would be no worse, and no better. 

And THAT, is all I am arguing at the moment.

>Your argument falls slightly, since you feel that laws comple actions, rather
>then codify opinions.

No, I accept your view.  

 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.
>

Suppose that was what proposed anti-abortion laws did.

Surely it is the same "consensus" that matters ... as it does for murder.

Noone complains that people who don't accept that human persons shouldnt be
murdered, should be exempted from prosecution.
(Or at least if they do, we ignore them).

So why should we listen to women who believe that they have a right-to-choose
when it comes to removing a foetus from their womb?

UNLESS of course the usual democratic process dictates that we should listen
to them.

Surely the issue is a simple one - of consensus?

>Anti-abortion laws are an attempt to codify an opinion that women
>do not have the right to self-determination.

Thats true - in the case of pregnancy, they don't (or shouldn't).

But they don't even enjoy total self-determination now!

> By implication, this reinforces
>an attitude that there are distinctions between men and women based on gender.

You see a problem with that?
Of course there are such distinctions.

>It is not fear that should restrain you from enacting such laws, but rather
>a sense of equality.

But I don't accept that men and women are equal when it comes to foetuses.

Men don't get pregnant.

*If* they did - then they should be bound by the same rules.


>|> 	BUT, all legislation is like that.  
>|> 	All legislation imposes.
>
>Not all legislation imposes bigotted prejudices. 

To someone who believes that they have a right or duty to withold taxes,
tax law imposes bigotted prejudice.

To someone who believes that women are there for the raping, rape laws
impose bigotted prejudice.

If laws impose at all, then they all do it - and in a "bigotted" way to boot - 
anti-abortion laws too.


>|> 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.

Without murder laws, I would be free to make a CHOICE based on personal belief.

Without tax laws, I would be free ...

Without <any> law, I would be free ...

By enacting those laws, someone has eliminated CHOICE and forced on society a
belief system that is not held by all members of that society (assuming I
rejected the beliefs underlying tax, murder and <any> laws).

I still don't see the difference with anti-abortion law.

>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.

Not in my case!

I just believe that foetuses should be protected because I like foetuses.
Unless a woman is going to die or be damn near it, I want the woman to leave
the fetus alone!  JUST 'cos I believe it.

OK - so what now.  No formality, no "patriarch".

Just the same type of unprovable tenants & beliefs that all our other laws are
based on.

Murder - based on a value for either others lives or my life.
Rape - based on a value for women (mostly).
Robbery - based on a value of an individual's right to property.

	(or whatever!)

I agree with those beliefs and values - but can I *prove* them?  Nope!

So, those laws - like anti-abortion laws:

	"tend to ignore the tenants & beliefs of faiths outside of 
	 the scope of the particular religion of the persons proposing the 
	 legislation"

All laws are like that.  The difference with the laws we have - as opposed to
the proposed laws - is that generally, the enacted ones are believed in
by CONSENSUS.

>They are very different.
>	1) there is no concencous as to the correctness of the legislation

	Well if thats all - then no problem.  But lets not talk about
	"pro-choice" and "anti-choice" then.  Lets just stick to
	"pro-consensus".
	Me, I'm pro-consensus.

	If due process of democracy allows abortion, tuff for me - and tuff
	for the foetuses.

	Are you prepared to say the same, if due process bans abortion?
	Are you - like me - "pro-consensus"?

>	2) they codify a discriminatory difference based on gender

	Uhu.  And?
	The genders are different arent they?

>	3) they prohibit the complete self-determination of women (an action
>	   not prohibited to men)

	But men don't get pregnant!

	Men do pay taxes however - even if they self-determine that they dont
	want to.

tk
Newsgroups: talk.abortion