From: osystems@world.std.com (Cary T Conrad)
Subject: (Abortion) Pro-rights!
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:31:30 GMT

First, I only have news access through a shared account.  PLEASE,
do not construe this to the account I am posting from, and PLEASE
credit me, (Ed Hinton.  hinton@osystems.com) in followups so as
not to misconstrue someone else's opinion.  Thanks.

I don't know how much of the abortion threads actually is generated
in alt.rush-limbaugh, but besides airing my view (and my thought
to be somewhat creative meaningless label), I am not cross-posting
so we can see if this group has just been going along for the ride.

Here's my argument:

Morally, I am pro-life.  However, I do not believe a purely pro-life
stance from conception is consititutionally defensible.

To define the issues, I will generalize (oh, oh) and say that pro-lifers
like myself generally believe that abortion constitutes taking the life
of a human being.  I will also generalize and say that pro-choicers
generally do not believe that the status of 'human being with
acoompanying rights to life, liberty, ...' is merited until much later
than conception, possibly as late as birth.

Unfortunately, both sides often view this conflict too absolutely.
Certainly, whenever COMPLETE AND TOTALLY OBJECTIVE certainty is
lacking in any matter, we are left with making decisions based upon
weighing possibilities.  I believe this is the case in the abortion debate.
There is some (not precisely quantifiable) probability that what is being
killed really IS a full human being deserving protection.  After all,
how does one define precise differences between the baby a moment before
birth and an elderly person on life support or someone in a coma who may
or may not come out of it.  These may not be perfect examples, but the
simple fact of reliance on another seems inadequate to fully support
birth as the line of demarcation unless clear criteria applicable to
all analogous circumstances can be found.

At the other extreme, I can see very little evidence beyond non-universal
moral judgements to support that the moment an egg becomes fertilized, it
at that time becomes a fully protected human being.  Although I agree with the
contention that morality is indeed the basis for MOST laws, not ALL
moral issues are sufficiently clear to justify their codification.

Even if the ferilized egg IS a human being, NO right in the constitution
is absolute.  The right to LIFE is not absolute under the constitution.
Furthermore, the right to privacy (if it exists) is not absolute under
the constitution.  Lacking clear, non-recursive, generalizable criteria for
making birth the point where ANY rights accrue, I would contend that the
abortion issue is one where rights must be weighed against each other.

Thus my label of pro-rights.  Both sides, at some point, have rights to be
protected and somehow weighed.  Now pro-choicers might argue that we don't
know for sure that the fetus deserves rights.  We also don't know for sure
that is doesn't, or when those rights should accrue.

MANY wholly constitutional laws exist which outlaw certain actions which
are not CERTAIN to violate someone's rights.  For instance, even if noone
else is on a stretch of road on a clear day with perfect conditions, it is
illegal to drive on the wrong side of the road.  After all, there IS a risk
that you just didn't notice a car coming, perhaps due to mental
distress, tiredness, or simple careless ness (NOT trying to draw an
analogy regarding carelessness & pregnancy.  That just starts
flame-wars).

In the case of abortion, there is a clear risk, based upon the lack of proof
on either side, that a human life worthy of protection IS being
terminated.  Thus, we have the task of trying to decide how to weigh the
rights of the mother against the risk that a life will be wrongly taken.
Now, in my own subjective mind, I would favor the pro-choice stance quite late
in pregnancy IF something other than the right to a LIFE were not what was
being risked.  However, since life is the potential risk, and life clearly is
THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT we have (is it possible someone does not value
the right to life, once accrued, to be the most fundamental and important?),
then the central issue to me is how and where to draw the line.  At
conception seems to me to be too early on constitutional grounds because
the liklihood of birth is lower and because whereas we are only weighing
risk and not certainty of loss of a protected right, then the mother's right
at conception still seem stronger.  At birth, or anywhere after all organs
have developed, awareness set in, etc, is too late because the risk of a now
almost fully functional lifebeing wrongful to terminate would outweigh the
mother's rights (except if her own life was endangered) just as much as
the right of an elderlym but aware, person on life support should not be
wrongfully terminated.

How, then, do we determine where to draw the line.  MY answer is to err
on the side of life and draw the line well before we KNOW awareness to
begin, since science generally progresses to show more and more
astounding facts as years progress.  Furthermore, since we are weighing rights,
which conflict, the weighing must take into account matters such as
consent and/or negligence.  For instance, to borrow the too often used
driving analogy, if I choose to risk death by automobile because I choose
to drive, then to a minor, but not insignificant degree, I have placed
myself at risk and must bear some of the consequence.  The greater the
degree of my choice to take risk, the less my right to the easiest
remedy.  After all, if I am in an accident, the best remedy would be to
have the best doctors at the best hospitals available and for me to not bear
ANY financial burden, including protection from income loss.  If I was
obeying all laws, driving cautiously (goes BEYOND laws), and got hit
by another driver, I would, indeed expect the above, or as close as
logistically possible.  On the other hand, if I increased my risk by
driving recklessly, I should probably foot the bill myself.  Although remedy
may be spought, it does NOT follow that the EASIEST remedy be allowed.

Likewise, if a person uses contraception, that fails, and the person is
CAREFULLY keeping track of her periods and notices a skip, then proper
weighing of rights would imply that timely action to seek abortion should
probably outweigh.  (Definition is timely is very grey, but every day
of delay before seeking the remedy should diminish the weight of her
rights).  On the other hand, someone who canstantly sleeps around, doesn't use
contraception, and waits until three or four months pregnant has been patently
negligent and probably does NOT warrant the EASIEST remedy (abortion).
Instead, other alternatives to raising a child (note that childbirth is only
a PART of the consequences being addressed) are probably more appropriate.

The sad result of my position, however, is that it's very hard to right
laws that properly address such gray areas.  My position nets out that
based upon my risk argument above and my view of choice versus negligence,
that different standards are needed where consent to sex (consent to risk)
was not given than when consent to sex (risk) was given.  Rather than end
up with too complicated a law, it should be REQUIRED that timely action
be taken, or the right to an abortion be lost.  Finally, I believe that
the risk of the most fundamental of rights (life) be violated should be given
paramount weight once awareness is at all likely to exist in the fetus.

OK.  Done my soapbox.  Everyone can dive back in now and tear me apart.

Ed Hinton

... My opinions are like everybody elses - biased, subjective, and likely to
be inflicted on those around me...

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6222 alt.activism.d:3427 talk.abortion:39478