From: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What's EASY and DIFFICULT in abortion.
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:38:24 GMT
Reply-To: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

In article <18ns9sINN3e5@gilligan.East.Sun.COM> mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori) writes:
>In article <43655@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:

>>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.

That "only reason" indicates that indeed we don't differ.

I want certain rights to be given to the foetus because there
are those who would have them taken away.

Exactly the same - except we are applying different values to different
things.

>If pro-lifers would keep their beliefs to themselves, I would
>not support a constitutional amendment, or any other form of
>legislation. 

If pro-choicers would keep their beliefs (that abortion should
not be legislated against) to themselves then I would not be
arguing this point.

We are quite balanced on this.

You value certain individual rights more than you value the rights
of a foetus to live.

And I value the opposite.

>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.

Similarly, since they (pro-choicers) seem to want everyone to live by
their rules (that abortion mustn't be legislated against), those of
us who care are force to fight for our freedom (to legislate against 
abortion).

>I do not wish to force an abortion on anyone, 

I do not wish to force anyone to support legislation

>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.

I just want to make sure that I have the choice to support legislation...

>>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.

That "asking" becomes "forcing" when you support aspects of the Constitution
which forbid certain laws - laws which I would otherwise vote for.

Your value (that abortion should not be legislated against) is being
foisted on Americans who believe that abortion should be legislated against.

You get what you want - at their expense.

At least that was the case - I can't keep track of what the current 
interpretation of the Constitution is.

>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.".

It is most certainly intrusive.

It stops me (or rather a like-minded American) from having a certain law.
It says "You do not have the right to have such a law".
It says "Under these circumstances you must do without such legislation".

That is based on values other than mine. It is being foisted on me.
And worse - it based on someone else's *arbitrary* values. 

>>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.

From what do they protect those rights?

Surely it is against potential violators?  And if those violators happen
to disagree with the law - then tough on them right?  The law gets foisted
on them.

>I oppose the foisting of values via legislation, period.

You just said that "good legislation protects the rights of others".
Why do we try to do that if we don't value those rights?
What else are those rights but a codifying of commonly held values.

>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.

Then why do we have law at all?

And, again, if law is their to protect "rights", then whence came those
"rights".

You (I guess) believe that a woman should maintain a right to abort.
I disagree with you.
Who is right?

I believe that a woman has a right to not be raped.
Some rapists (psycopaths perhaps) may disagree.
Who is right?

If we only do what we believe, despite what the law says, then surely
law is just an arbitrary set of actions which - if committed or omitted,
depending on the law - will result in prosecution?

tommy
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35254 talk.religion.misc:15720