From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Re: The Abortion Issue
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 01:27:51 GMT

In article <1685EBB22.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>Why is it that no one wants to take on the only real issue there is
>regarding abortion?
> 
>There is one, and only one, issue: Is abortion murder?
> 
>If it isn't, then there are no anti- issues that hold water, since
>it becomes about as contraversial as an appendectomy.
> 
>If it is, then the social engineering arguments about poor mothers
>are about as convincing as are arguments for putting the poor to death.
> 
>Perhaps people are so stuck in situational and applied ethics that they
>can't spot a fundamental ethical issue any more.

  This has bothered me also.  Being a parent I think I can safely
say that the distinction between non-human being and human being is not
determined by whether the object has passed through another human's
orifice.  So I think it can be agreed upon by everyone that the 'fetus' is
a living human being for at least some period in the womb (the length of
that period can be argued).  So this leaves us with a conflict between two
individuals rights.

1) the human's (or potential human's) right to life.

and

2) a woman's right to control her body.

There are good arguements for both sides and luckily (or unluckily) we live
in a country in which there is a legal framework to decide which right has
precedence over the other.
  If abortion is currently legal, then fine.  It was decided through our
system of law and if I disagree then I should either move to another
country or work within the system to change things.  The thing that really
ticks me off, though, is how the 'pro-choice' lobby wants not just to make
abortion legal, but also wants to mandate that it be guilt-free.  Now in
certain circumstances, such as incest, rape, and severely deformed fetuses,
the level of 'guilt' will be extremely low or non-existant as compared to
abortions which are performed as a matter of convenience or sex selection.
It is the latter case which the pro-choice forces are vehemently working to
make guilt-free in society.  If it is just 'tissue', why is there such
uproar by the pro-choicers when presented by graphic evidence of the
results by either private commercials or the public media?  If the
law says you can have an abortion then fine, go ahead.  But don't twist
reality in order to avoid the guilt associated with your decision.
Everyone would agree that any fit parent would give their life for their
child (I'm talking about one that has been born).  A woman is not a machine
with feelings that can be turned on and off like a light switch.  She
cannot be made to consider the unborn child inside her as a non-human piece
of tissue, but five minutes after birth let's flip on the maternal instinct
and be willing to give her life for the child.  Maybe a little guilt from
the first abortion of convenience will keep the second one from happening.
  The pro-choice lobby always throws out their standard line (imagine
shrill, sarcastic voice) - "Well who's gonna pay the cost of raising all of
these unwanted kids?".  Good point.  Well I'm gonna argue that mandating
guilt-free abortions has led to a devaluing of the child in society, which
in turn has led to increases in child poverty, child abuse, crimes
committed by minors, and a host of other problems which are directly
attributable.  So when abortion is illegal you can send the pro-lifers a
bill to pay for the cost of raising unwanted kids, but in the meantime all
pro-choicers should be willing to have their taxes tripled to pay for the
cost of fixing problems in society attributed to legalized abortion.
Sounds fair to me.
  I think what scares people most about the word 'liberal' (even liberals
don't like to be called liberal) is the impression that 'liberal' policies
mean wiping away the guilt associated with actions or behaviors that are
detremental to society.  The are reasons (non-religous ones) for wanting
people to feel guilty about divorce, sex outside of marriage, non-standard
sexual relationships, abortion, and a whole host of other things.  It's
because if we turn our world into one big free-for-all with the number one
priority being self-gratification, then society is going to rot.
Government does not have any right to impose laws forcing us to live within
a standard, but society, through peer pressure, should.  It is this peer
pressure which has been lacking over the last thirty years and is
responsible for the terrible shape society is in today.
  So before the flame wars begin, I have said - let abortion stay legal if
that's what the people want, but don't try to alleviate the guilt of those
who have abortions for convenience, they could make lousy parents later in
life if you do.

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well, judging by his outlandish attire, he's some sort | These pontifications
of free-thinking anarchist." - Charles Montgomery Burns |      are my own!    
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections