From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Criteria for Personhood
Date: 11 Oct 1992 21:30:47 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


   To the best of my knowledge, no society in the entire recorded
history of humankind as EVER treated a fetus as a person.  And so
the movement to legally transform a pregnant woman into child and
mother before nature does flies in the face of all history.  This
does not mean that those who support a woman's right to decide if
she will or will not endure the danger and rigors of pregnancy do
not think oabout the question.  It is just that the status of the
fetus varies from religion to religion - religion being the prime
cause of this conflict.  Catholicism holds that personhood begins
at that moment that a sperm goes through an egg wall, and at that
moment should be given all the rights of any other person in this
country.  In practice, though, this would actually require law to
empower the fetus to do things that no other man, woman, or child
would be allowed to do.  Judaism holds that the woman is a person
whose life is paramount throughout all of pregnancy.  And that if
her life is endangered at ANY point in the pregnancy up to birth,
the pregnancy must be terminated to protect her life, because the
Jewish faith does not regard the fetus as a person until the head
of the fetus begins to emerge during birth.  
   Considering these two widely differing religious views and the
status of the fetus throughout history, anti-abortion laws impose
a religious view on all of America, whereas laws that protect the
right to choose do just that.  That is, they permit the differing
views of this issue to be practiced by all concerned.
   The entire legal system evolved based on millinia of societies
that did NOT elevate the status of a fetus to that of one who was
born.  The violation of human rights and the invasion of personal
privacy that would result from legislating that a pregnant female
is actually TWO people, is more than the majority in America seem
to be willing to accept.  But even more important than the what a
majority wants is the idea that NOT ONE SINGLE FEMALE SHOULD EVER
BE FORCED TO GIVE BIRTH AGAINST HER WILL.  IT IS PERHAPS THE MOST
INVASIVE FORM OF SLAVERY THAT A HUMAN BEING CAN ENDURE.  IT IS AN
ABOMINATION.  IT IS *HER* LIFE!  IT IS *HER* HEALTH!  IT IS *HER*
DECISION.  THAT'S WHY WE CALL IT *CHOICE*!
   The anti-abortion zealots have repeatedly refered to those for
choice as being 'pro-abortion.'  This is bullshit.  I have yet to
meet ANY pro-choice activist who is pro-abortion.  To label those
of us for choice as being 'pro-abortion' is even more stupid than
saying that those who support freedom of speech should be labeled
'pro-Howard Stern!'
   Of course there is no consencus in the pro-choice movement, as
to what the fetus is, and when.  That's why some anonymous person
for choice summed up the issue in two words.  Who decides?

-- 
   "One can be a racist.  Or one can be a human being.  But one
may not be both."
                                 - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel

Newsgroups: talk.abortion