From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: SIMPLE ANSWER
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:23:04 GMT

I took alt.politics.homosexuality out of the newsgroups line.

ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu (Erik Karl Witte) writes:
# It seems to me that everyone needs to back off from the abortion issue
# and think about it.
#
# Abortion is a matter of a conflict of rights - the right of a woman to
# have an abortion, and the right of the fetus to come live a life.

I disagree.  I see it as fundamentally a women's rights issue.

# One thing everyone can agree upon is that no one can agree.  The obvious
# answer is - compromise!

And of course, the obvious answer is *always* the best answer...

I am of the opinion that the right to abortion, like the right to free
speech and other `fundamental' rights, should suffer minimal
compromise.  There are those who feel that the right to keep and bear
arms is similarly `fundamental' and who feel justified in taking a no
compromise position.

The issue is `are abortion rights fundamental?'  How much infringement
is allowable.  Some would ban abortions outright without compromise,
some call for abortion on demand without apology, and those that are
left, if they have an opinion at all, seem to think there is nothing
`fundamental' about either the right to abortion or the fetal right to
life, and want compromise for the sake of compromise because they're
tired of being distracted by the raging street-fight that *is* the
abortion `debate.'

#                          How do we compromise on this issue?  Well, you
# start by shooting the anti - abortion lunatics and the pro - abortion
# lunatics, because they only cloud the issue.

My.  How tolerant.  Get rid of them all because they keep clouding the
issue with talk about their `fundamental' rights.  Obviously, these
people are all idiots who've completely lost their minds over the
trivial details...

#                                               In the end, what most
# people want (according to just about every poll - CNN Gallup, ABC
# Gallup, and a number of others) is that most people favor restricted
# abortions.  People want for abortions to be legal but not used.

Most people haven't thought about the issue.  To the majority of
Americans, the abortion rights issue is `somebody else's problem,' and
suburbanites have little patience with what they think are other
peoples problems.

A lot of people oppose the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments
to the U.S. Constitution according to polls -- that doesn't mean it's
a good idea to scrap the Bill of Rights.

# That doesn't quite work, so look somewhere else, like to
# Pennsylvania.

Otay, home-style -- looks like you want to see the arguments against
Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act again.

I'll do my best.

# The Pennsylvania Law which was kept mostly intact by a
# moderate-conservative Supreme Court still makes it illegal for a state
# to ban abortions.  However, it supports the constitutionality of a
# number of simple restrictions, all of which are based upon simple tenets
# of thought in our society.

That everyone holds?  Think again.

# For example, the waiting period.  What's wrong with making people wait a
# day for an abortion?

I disagree with the Supreme Court that this puts an undue burden on
women seeking to exercise their abortion rights.  When you have to
save up for four months to be able to afford the abortion procedure
because you're dirt poor and you don't have health insurance that
covers it, and you have to take a day off from work and bus a hundred
miles into the nearest city with a women's health clinic, having to
stay overnight in a hotel room while you wait for the mandatory
waiting period to expire is not a trivial detail.

#                       Nobody has any problem with it for guns.  A day's
# wait would save many people's lives in the case of voluntary
# manslaughter, a similar case of something done in a heat of passion, or
# any kind of emotional rage.  Forcing a person to wait at least tries to
# insure that they think about their decision.

Say that over on talk.politics.guns.

In addition, don't be surprised if you get flamed to a nice crisp here
in talk.abortion for baldly asserting that pregnant women, left to
their own devices, would have abortions without thinking about the
decision first, and would need a state-mandated `cooling off period'
before they could be capable of thinking for themselves.

# The same goes for abortion alternatives information.  Providing
# information is something that is easy to do.  Give women pamphlets to
# read during their one-day wait.  They don't have to read them if they
# don't want to, and then they at least have the opportunity of making an
# intelligent choice.

Women already get abortion alternatives information.  Pennsylvania
mandates that they get it.  Why is this law even perceived to be
necessary?  Could it be that the information women are already getting
is not what the State wants them to get?

This kind of law is designed to allow the state to engage in
anti-abortion propaganda for no other purpose than to persuade women
not to abort their pregnancies.  It's a waste of the woman's time and
it's a waste of the government's time and it simply doesn't serve the
public interest.

# How about the parental consent law.  Parents should be allowed to know
# what their child is doing.  If the child goes ahead and has an abortion
# with a judge's consent, the parents can punish that child for their
# decision if they wish.  This is such a simple concept it is hard to
# believe anyone should be opposed to it.

Parental consent and parental notification laws always have the exact
opposite effect desired.  Pregnant minors who choose to have abortions
without parental consent or knowledge generally do so because one or
both of their parents are violent abusers.  Requiring minor women to
obtain a judge's permission to have an abortion so as to avoid having
to risk the wrath of her parents, is a serious burden, as judges could
demand evidence that the parents are abusive -- and that can be a
daunting task.

Typically what happens in states where parental consent laws are in
place is that pregnant minors with parents who would deny the woman
permission to have an abortion, unable to acquire legal abortion, often
choose to have illegal (frequently unsafe) abortions instead.  Same
outcome for the fetus.  Much nastier outcome likely for the woman.  It
doesn't do anything to reduce the number of unplanned teenage
pregnancies.

It's a lose-lose scenario.

# Americans don't want abortions banned outright, they don't want
# pregnancies to be free of responsibility, and they don't want to pay for
# other people's abortions.

Pro-choice Americans see pregnancy as a responsibility in and of
itself that demands direct action: either an attempt to carry to term,
or abortion. Many Americans don't mind paying for other people's
abortions.  George Bush himself used to be a big supporter of Planned
Parenthood.

#                            Find a middle road.  It's hard to believe
# anyone can't like the Pennsylvania Law.  It should be made national. 
# How about it?

Anybody else want to take a shot at explaining what's wrong with the
Pennsylvania law?

-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

"there's a lot going on that you miss. nothing soft about THESE
machines. mean, timeless, mean, purposeful, crammed with meaning."
                                                  -- Andrew Palfreyman