Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 01:47:08 -0500 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Christianity cares about lives--other religions = hypocrites!
	<C1Hv4E.3LD.1@cs.cmu.edu>
Distribution: na

On 27-Jan-93 in Re: Christianity cares abou..
user Tom Smith@cs.cmu.edu writes:
>I'm continually amazed at the vehemence of the pro-choice lobby in insisting
>that any argument against abortion must somehow be the rabid foamings of
>extreme Christians who don't care about women.  The only thing necessary to
>hold a pro-life view on abortion is the belief, from whatever source, that a
>fetus is a human life, and is deserving of the same protection that would be
>afforded other humans under the law.

    People may come to all sorts of strange conclusions.  Consider the
teaching of Scientology or the politics of Lyndon LaRouche.  The real
question for people who favor a woman's right to choose an abortion is
why does there exists an anti-abortion movement.  Anti-abortionists like
to scream indignantly that this is someway not a fair question; that
their motives are beyond reproach, the life of the "baby".  However, it
is quite within our rights to attempt to determine if this in fact the
case.  The motives of anyone who demands the state intervenes with what
a person does with her body should be examined quite carefully, because
such intervention is a drastic step.  The anti-abortionists are, of
course, quite welcome to speculate why we hold our beliefs.  Some
anti-abortionists do, in fact, have theories about why people are
pro-choice.
   Two things should be considered in examing the motives of the
anti-abortion movement:  its history and its current culture.  
    Historically, the pro-life movement is an invention of the Catholic
Church.  Ancient Meditterrean cultures practiced infanticide and few, if
any, ancient philosophers denounced this practice until Imperial Rome
decided it wanted a larger population.  The desire for a larger
population was based military considerations.  Ancient Catholic writings
make it clear that their opposition to infanticide and abortion were
based at least in part on the need to oppress those who may break the
christian sexual code.  There was much controversy in the early church. 
Saint Augustine's teachings held that ensoulment happened at quickening
or six weeks after conception, and thus, abortion before the sixth week
would appear to be ok.  The Catholic Church did not really get around to
totally clearify it teaching on this subject until the ninteenth
century.  Today, the Catholic Church is still the group that spends most
time and money on efforts to end abortion.  Protestent Fundamentalists
were not even particularly well represented in anti-abortion groups
until the election of the Reagan, though they now appear to be rather
enthuaistic about this idea.
    The culture of the anti-abortion movement is heavily religious.  The
leadership of the anti-abortion movement of talks of god, as if he were
a personal friend.  They claim to be acting in accord with god's will. 
Pro-Life meetings will often begin with prayer.  Also, the literature of
the "pro-life" movement is very homophobic.  The anti-abortionists are
seemingly unable to write eight pages of prose without some attack on
gay people.  The only connection between abortion and homosexuality
appears to be that both upset those who wish that everyone conformed to
christian sexual taboos (or "sexual morality" as they often call it).
    Thus, while I would hesitate to ascribe a given cause for any given
individual's rationale in opposing a woman's bodily autonomy, the
evidence is that the anti-abortion movement is correctly percieved by
pro-choicers as a movement that seeks to impose christian sexual taboos
on unwilling women. 

Michael Loomis