From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: abortion, religion
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 05:08:12 GMT

stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:

>In article <1993Jan15.202755.26242@hobbes.kzoo.edu>
>k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:

First of all, I'd like to thank Steven for taking the time to write
out a whole position in relatively coherent terms.

I'll try and give a pro-choice perspective on the issues he raises.

   [happy delete key does its work]

>>If you are truly suggesting outlawing all abortions on the grounds that
>>they are murder--even abortions obtained as soon as a woman knows she
>>is pregnant--then you are claiming that a barely-developed fetus is a
>>human being in the same sense that I am.

>Yes.

So is it your position that all of a person's experiences, accomplishments,
good and bad deeds, the sum total of their lives, is for nothing?  You
seem to be saying that we are all created equal, from the moment of
conception, Nobel Prize winner = mass murderer = single-cell zygote.

I can't buy that.

>>Pro-life groups wish to ban the "morning after" pill.  Do you?

>Yes.

I don't recall if you would allow abortions in the case of rape.  If
so, you do realize that the morning-after pill is used primarily in
the case of rape?  How would you ensure its availability to rape
victims while be similarly certain that no one else could use it?

      [religion deleted]

>>If you are aware of any other position, a logical consequence of which
>>is that an unfertilized egg is not human while a fertilized egg is,
>>please explain it to me.

>You asked for it.  I give my (previously written) position below.

>>If your claim is "a line needs to be drawn at some point, and I say it's
>>the tenth week," that's fine--you're being consistent.  But I can just
>>as consistently claim the thirty-sixth week, and you have no grounds on
>>which you can argue against me.

>Exactly, which is why I say the only defensible "line" is the start,
>conception.

And I say that since conception is a hazy process at best, and since
its almost impossible to know when it occurs, that to me the only
defensible line is a visible, clear, unarguable _event_: birth.

   [Steven isn't religious]

>Those who favor legal abortion often say, we don't know when human life
>starts or science can't tell us when human life or personhood begins. 
>This statement can only be made based on (at least) a quasi-religious
>belief in some extra-biological aspect in what constitutes human life
>(personhood).  The biological facts are not in question (at least, not
>this century), and these, it seems to me, are the only sound basis for
>deciding what is and isn't human life (a person).

Your use of "human life (person)" suggests that the terms are synonymous
to you.  I'm sure you realize that many people don't agree.

Regardless, I point out that the very ambiguousness of the situation
is a strong argument for choice.  We have two entities in conflict -
why on earth would we decide in favor of the entity that may _not_ be
a person.  Why would we ignore the only opinion being expressed -
that of a grown woman who faces all manner of possible hazards as a
consequence?

>I am against abortion because the development of an adult human being
>is a gradual process and there is no meaningful transitions -- no
>bright line -- one can use to separate the person from the non-person in
>this process other than conception.*  

That's patently ridiculous.  Birth is far clearer and completely 
unambiguous as a dividing line.

>If abortion is ok at three
>months, the logical mind will wonder why not four or five months -- and
>if then, why not later? -- because what of significance to being a person
>has changed?  

Indeed.  That is why many of us see no reason for restrictions on when
a woman may terminate a pregnancy.  For what is the single unifying 
factor of the 3, 5, or 8 month fetus?  The fact that they all reside
within a woman.

>Abortion in Oregon, and I understand many states, would
>be legal even while the mother is in labor (please note I'm not saying
>this happens often or even ever, just that it would be legal).

Presumably, it's also legal to eat a Cadillac.  Would you legislate
against this, with no evidence that it happens in any significant numbers,
just because eating a Cadillac would have disastrous consequences?

>  The
>logical mind would wonder what it is about the birth process that makes
>the child a person and why it is not ok to kill the child after birth,
>when it would have been ok just a few minutes before.  

Do you really, honestly, believe that there are women out there who
would opt to kill a fetus while they are in labor?  Further, do you
believe there is a doctor who would do this?

>I have heard it
>argued, on the NET and elsewhere in print, that "abortion" be allowed
>up to two years after birth.  

Strawman.  That's infanticide, not abortion.

>I see it argued that there are too many
>people in the world and we therefore should do nothing to discourage
>abortion.  I worry about the effect of this kind of thinking on the
>children who are born and those who raise them.  Legal abortion
>inevitably cheapens human life, and I think we are seeing the effects
>of that, in the high murder rate, increasing child-abuse, and the
>increasing talk (and act) of euthanasia on the other end of life.

Nonsense.  Learn some American history before you talk about legal
abortion "cheapening human life".  Life is valued much more now than
just 50 or 60 years ago.  Read about the abuses which led to child 
labor laws.  Children were often used in coal mining due to their 
small size (much cheaper to drill small tunnels and send kids down,
doncha know), even though many died doing so.  And this is hardly the
first moment in history that euthanasia has been practiced.  In fact,
it's only the advancement of medicine to the point where lives can
be prolonged far past the point when a person would have inevitably
died previously that brings up the issue of "When is enough, enough?"
Note that voluntary suicide was a mark of great dignity in cultures
such as the Inuit.

>  I
>find it highly alarming that so many people seem to take the position
>that it is ok to kill unproductive members of society simply for
>personal or societal convenience.

Who is taking that position?  That is certainly not the position of
most pro-choicers, nor of most advocates of voluntary euthanasia.
If you wish to bring in extremist strawmen, I can bring up the article
in the American Life League magazine which argues _against_ allowing
a "life of the mother" exception in anti-abortion laws.

>As to the rights of the mother, I am not unmindful of these, but what do
>we say about the mother, or parents who neglect their infant?  It is
>child abuse.  If the infant dies due to neglect, it is manslaughter or
>even murder.  

Not always.  There was a recent case where I live where a mother whose
daughter starved to death was not charged in the death.  The court
ruled that she was simply unable to cope with the responsibilities 
of parenthood.

>We have no problem saying the mother has responsibilities
>after her child is born, why not before?

We have no problem allowing a mother to give up her child(ren) after
they are born, why not before?

Are you in favor of legal constraints on the behavior of pregnant
women?

>It is said of the pregnant woman, that it her body and she should be
>able to do as she wants with it.  Ignoring the child for a moment, we
>aren't shy about telling her what she can and can't do with her body in
>other area's.  We tell her what drugs she can use and what she can't
>and we tell her she can't sell sex (both of which I consider far worse
>abuses of her rights).  Why is abortion so special?

Perhaps because drugs and sex are (arguably) acts of will, while
pregnancy is not.

Woman A and woman B both have sex.  Woman A becomes pregnant, woman B
does not.  Why do we now restrict the rights of woman A, while not
restricting the rights of woman B?  Because its just too bad that
woman A happened to get knocked up?  Is fertility a sufficient reason
to remove rights from a woman?

>It is said that it is her life, and the decision affects only her, so
>the decision should be made by her alone.  Ignoring the child for the
>moment, what about the father?  It is his child too.  It certainly
>affects him.  What about grandparents, siblings, aunts, uncles, and so
>on.  Abortion affects far more than just the mother.

In what way?  If no one but the pregnant woman knew about the pregnancy,
how are all these other people affected by it?  Don't argue that "they
will never know that child", because my relatives _also_ won't know
all the children I could have conceived while I was celibate.  That's
hardly a reason to outlaw celibacy.

>It is said that we have no right to force our morality on others.  I'm
>not doing that, and wouldn't if I could.  And I don't think this is any
>business of the federal government's either way.  I think this should
>be decided by the vote, state by state.  But should a society, through
>the state, "force" morality on people.  Again, we aren't shy about
>forcing our morality on people in other cases where other people are
>involved.  We do not hesitate to "force" our morality on Jeffrey Dalmer
>or Ted Bundy, or even in the case of parents who abuse their children, 
>so we aren't violating some inviolable principle to do it in the case of
>abortion.

Compare the numbers of people who think murder is an "immoral act" with
the numbers of people who feel that way about abortion.  Most referendums
on abortion have come out in favor of abortion remaining legal.

There are also arguments here about Constitutional rights _not_ being
a fit subject for popular vote, but I'm tired.

>People talk about reproductive rights, and claim that any restrictions on
>abortion would be a violation of these.  I would say that a pregnant
>woman has already reproduced.  She already has a child, and it is too
>late to talk of family planning or reproductive rights.

Then why do we say that a pregnant woman is "going to be a mother"?
Perhaps society recognizes that the responsibilities of pregnancy are
far different from those of being a parent.  To loosely paraphrase a
line from "Parenthood": "Any dick can make a baby.  It takes a man to
be a father."

>People bring up the case of rape and incest.  I find this irrelevant. 
>Clearly, this doesn't change what abortion is, or what it is that is
>being aborted.

Not from any perspective at all?  It most certainly has the potential
to change the nature of the fetus from the standpoint of the victim.

Say we made a nice "responsibility" law:  No man that had engaged in
anal sex could receive medical treatment for colon injuries or
hemmorroids (sp?).  Say that you were raped, and your colon was torn.
You're now refused medical treatment because you had anal sex.  The
fact that you were raped, they say, doesn't change the nature of anal
sex.  Wouldn't you feel just the teeniest bit discriminated against?

>People bring up the case of danger to the life of the mother, and ask if
>abortion is ok to save the life of the mother, aren't we making a value
>judgement here?  If the fetus is a human life, why would we value the
>life of the mother's over his?  I see no need to make any value
>judgement over the relative merits of the two lives.  It is a clear cut
>case of self-defense, and I would treat it exactly as such.  Everyone has
>a right (and I think a duty) to defend their life by any reasonable
>means necessary, up to and including killing others, if that is
>reasonably necessary, if there is no other way out.  The fetus isn't
>wittingly putting the mother's life in danger, but does that change
>anything?  No.

By this logic, could we reasonably kill any woman that had tried to
self-abort?  After all, she put the fetus' life in danger, even if
she didn't realize that's what she was doing.  If you really feel
that grown human adult = single-cell zygote,  you can't justify
killing the fetus to save the mother.  Best to let her die naturally,
and _then_ see if you can save the fetus.

>I realize my position is extreme.  I understand that many, perhaps most
>fertilized eggs end in miscarriage.  I doubt we should go to any special
>effort to save these even if we could.  I have trouble getting very worked
>up over the use of the IUD or in characterizing it's users and other people
>guilty of killing fertilized eggs as murderers.  I could be convinced it
>isn't if someone can make the proper case and answer my objections.

A thought experiment might help: (yes gang, it's the "burning fertility
clinic")

You're walking down the street, and you see a building on fire.  The
sign says "FERTILITY CLINIC".  You run in (gallant gentleman that you
are) to see what you can do. You see a tray on a table that says "100
Fetilized Human Eggs", and in the corner there's a doctor trapped under
a fallen beam with a broken leg.  The roof's falling down, and you
know you can only save the tray or the doctor. 

Who do you save?

There's no need to answer this one, just think about it to clarify
your feelings about the relative value of born human beings and
fertilized eggs.

>I don't imagine that his short article will change anyone's mind on this
>issue.  But I want to point out this is not an easy issue.  Powerful
>arguments can be made on both side's of it.  Neither position is
>irrational or stupid.  The question of abortion deserves better, more
>serious discussion than the ad hominem and condescension that has
>characterized this debate so far.

Hey, I've tried to be rational here, for my part.

>Once again, I posted my position on abortion because I was asked.  I
>obviously can't stop people from responding, but if you want to ask me
>questions or want to debate abortion with me, please take it to email. 

I'm not really an email person.

>* One could argue for birth, but what really changes there from the
>point of the child?  

The fetus isn't the one that wants an abortion.

Neglecting, for the moment, that the fetus' body changes, as well as
it's total environment.

>orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce

                    -rocker
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15196 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13872 alt.politics.clinton:21265 alt.politics.bush:16379 alt.politics.homosexuality:10310