From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 23:02:09 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <1806@celia.UUCP> celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.174742.25013@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>
>->Look.  If the legislature deems that abortion is murder, fine and dandy.
>->Make a law against abortion.  As long as abortion is legal, the 
>->government has no right to place restrictions on it.  It's either murder
>->or it isn't.  None of this exemption crapola for rape or incest.  After
>->all, a baby is a baby, no matter how the conception took place.  What
>->the government needs to do is define when _human_ life begins.  Hopefully,
>->some sort of scientific criteria would be used in making this definition,
>->like the point at which normal human brainwaves can be detected.  Once
>->this definition is in place, normal homicide laws apply.  All of the
>->arguments I've heard on the issue center around religious dogma that life
>->begins at conception.  If that's your belief, fine.  Don't have abortions.
>->But don't put your religious beliefs on anyone else.
>
> Dale, your points are very well thought out. I have one problem though.
>Why do we need the government to tell us when life begins ? That could be
>very dangerous. Supposed they say that life begins when you start paying
>taxes. Life begins when you are old enough to vote. Life begins when
>you start sucking your thumb. Life begins when your sell your soul to Big
>Government. The only solution I can see is that life begins at conception
>and we dont need a government "socialist" to tell us that.
>

Thanks for the compliment (I think :-).  

To answer your question:  No matter what the solution, the government has
decided the issue.  The only way they can *not* decide is to leave it 
totally up to the individual.  I doubt that's what you want.  No, better
to base the line on some sort of scientific evidence, and put that into
law.  After all, in the final analysis, isn't that what the government's
role _should_ be?  To be the arbiter when large factions of society can't
agree on something?

You see, your solution is arbitrary.  Arbitrary laws cause nothing but
dissent.  Would you be happy if the line were arbitrarily drawn at six
months?  8 months?  I venture to guess not.  So why should someone who
does not believe _human_ life begins at conception be happy with your
definition?  The only real solution is a solid definition of when life
begins, that can be challenged based on science, not dogma.

Your "what ifs" are pure smoke.  There's no basis that I can see that the
government would ever move towards your possibilities.  There is a huge
historical precedent that life begins at birth, as far as the law goes.
We are in the process of defining at what point *before* birth that a
human life begins.  You extrapolate in the wrong direction.  I could 
just as easily argue that with your definition, what will the government
do next? Outlaw contraception?  There's far more precedent for that
possibility.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "There is no animal so spooky as the True Believer."
                   ---Edward Abbey
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------