From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: 28 Jul 92 00:28:11 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.

From: steveth@rossinc.com (Steve Thomas)
In <1992Jul27.180856.8765@rossinc.com>, steveth@rossinc.com (Steve Thomas) writ
es:

>I'm very sorry about that.  I often get a bad feeling about many pro-choice
>activists and their rather irrational attitudes and arguments.  It makes me
>nervous to think that THOSE people are in charge of defending my rights...

I'm generally conservative, but the Operation Rescue folks are no better.  One
tried to hand Bill Clinton an aborted fetus a few days ago.

>The issue consists of two things:

>1. Unborn fetuses are NOT human beings.
>2. People have a right to choose what they do with their own bodies.

>It's really very simple, actually.  I think the majority of this country
>agrees with #1 and #2.  Unfortunately, the Left (hipocritically) ceases
>on this issue and packages the popular issue of keeping abortion legal
>with the rather unpopular idea of forcing people to pay for another
>government welfare program ("Free Abortion on Demand").

This falls right in line with my feelings.  It is the libertarian view, and an
outstanding point.  This often is neglected in abortion debates.  It is usually
portrayed as black and white, or far-left and far-right.  From polls I've
seen, and from personal experiences, I would say that a majority favors
abortion *with some restrictions*.  That is, the fundamentalist "abortion
should be always illegal" and the liberal "federally funded abortion on demand"
rallying cries are both minority opinions.  Most people think grey on this
issue, not black or white.

One can always tell the politics of an organization by the way the question is
worded.  The right will ask if "you support federally funded abortion on
demand for any reason".  Then, they'll say that "73% of the people are opposed
to abortion."  Similarly, the left will ask if you "think abortion should be
illegal under all circumstances." Then they brag about the "fact" that 82% of
America is pro-choice.  How the question was qualified is usually footnoted.

Few people want to force rape victims to have the child.  Similarly, few people
want the government to fund abortions, especially for birth control and sex
selection.  Yet NOW, NARAL, and Operation Rescue never mention that.

>I wouldn't call you a "NAZI".  I'd call you a Christian--a rather zealous
>one that needs everybody else to be Christians.  Even if you are not one,
>the anti-choice movement clearly is.  Like the FAoD people, the anti-choice
>people have a hidden adgena, and theirs consists of forcing the Biblical
>views of sex and reproduction on the American public.

Just to be fair:  If the pro-lifers can be called "anti-choice," can't the
pro-choicers be called "anti-life?"

>A postscript: the FAoD people might get shanghied by RU486--it's cheap,
>and it being "Free, On Demand" wouldn't be much of a victory for Socialism
>in America (they'll find something else to do).  I really hope that it
>gets specifically legalized by congress, and that more research is done
>with this medical technology...  (You'll watch the abortion issue become
>a DEAD issue in a real hurry... [suppose the Demo's will find that to their
>disadvantage?])

My *personal* leanings are pro-life, but I don't want to see abortion complete-
ly snuffed out.  Policy should not be based on my values.  However, I'd much
rather see a woman take an RU486 pill the day after intercourse than get an
abortion six months later.  To me, there is little ethical problem with
snuffing out an embryo.  Once it starts forming human-like features, then I
get a little queasy.

Just my reasonable, non-polarized $0.02 worth.

Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
***********************************************************************
The Federalist Papers:  Cliffs Notes for Constitutional study.  Use it.

Marrou/Lord '92