Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Back from Texas - 1 of 2
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Date: 10 Apr 92 06:00:00 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

Tommy, I'm others will get to you first.  I want to say that it really
seemed you were trying to understand, but then you missed the biggest
point of the issue.

<31067@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk> tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) said:
>So, Adrienne, concerning your opposition to anti-abortion legislation...
>
>Adrienne, and a bunch of others, have frequently criticised proposed 
>anti-abortion legislation, not on the grounds that the foetus wasn't a person,
>but simply on the grounds that REGARDLESS of what the foetus was, it had
>no right to be where it was.

Yes, but you didn't address the location issue AT ALL.

>The nature of the foetus is, to them, irrelevant.

Yes, because of it's location.

...

>OK, lets look at this further - in particular, I want to focus in on that
>VERY IMPORTANT BIT that I mentioned before I left for the US.

Which was what????

>As far as I can see, here is why Adrienne etc oppose anti-abortion legislation:
>1. Anti-abortion legislation would compel a woman to obey something that she 
>   did not herself believe in (or face the consequences).

This doesn't sound familiar to me (I count myself in that "etc" you
referenced above).  Perhaps if you tacked on, "for no good reason" to the
end of your above statement.

>THEREFORE SURELY, I demand, anti-abortion laws are no worse than anti murder
>laws.

Yes, they are.  Anti-murder laws protect us all.  Anti-abortion laws
protect the pro-lifers feelings from being offended.

I'm afraid this looks like a strawman to me.

>AH BUT, explain Adrienne etc:
>2. The compulsion imposed by anti-abortion legislation is a result of a
>   a system of unprovable beliefs.  These are often criticised as being
>   "religious" beliefs.
>   So it is not simply that the law would compel - but further that it
>   would compel for NO GOOD REASON.

You horses in the middle of that stream there.  If abortion laws are based
on religious beliefs they are unconstitutional.  This would be a bad
precedent indeed.

>THEREFORE SURELY, I demand, anti-abortion laws are no worse than anti murder
>laws.           

Yes, they are.  Anti-murder laws protect us all.  Anti-abortion laws
protect the pro-lifers feelings from being offended.

>AH BUT, explain Adrienne etc:
>	(N.B. THIS, is the VERY IMPORTANT BIT.  THIS, is the keystone of
>	 Adrienne's stance)
>
>3. If I impose on people by law, then I may be next to get imposed on.
>   So finally, it is not a matter of rightness or wrongness.  It is a matter 
>   of fear.  I must restrain from enacting any law which Adrienne doesn't want,
>   because otherwise I'll be next!

It is a real concern.  For example, we allowed RICO laws. RICO laws were
intended to allow law enforcement agencies to nail big time drug
syndicates.  What it did do is turn the police loose on the populace at
large.  All I have to do is call the police anonymously and give them a
tip that Suzanne Forgach is growing marijuana in her house and they can
break down the door and search it.  Toss a joint over the fence into her
yard and they can seize the entire property.  And, this is the dangerous
part, under RICO you have to *prove you are innocent*.  So by allowing a
foot in the door under the pretext of stopping big drug runners we have
managed to repeal part of the constitution.

>	BUT, all legislation is like that.  

No it isn't.

>So what is different about proposed anti-abortion laws?

They force a woman into involuntary servitude.  Again, somthing that is
strictly forbidded in the constitution (except for the gray areas of
convicted felons and war time conscription).

>If they are to be shunned because they may open the door to laws that restrict
>me - then I should also shun laws against rape, murder, robbery - because 
>somewhere out there maybe a rapist, a murderer and a robber will enact
>an anti-tommy law.

Not at all.  Can't you see that laws against rape, murder and theft all
deal with a *victim*.  There isn't a victim in abortion.

>It is true that anti-abortion laws will force some women to complete their
>pregnancies.
>
>Now is the only argument against that, that I'd better watch my back!?

Tommy, if it was possible for someone to take a small animal and stick
inside your body for 9 months to grow and stretch your body cavity,
endanger your life, and make you possibly lose your job and/or education,
ALL against your will, you might really understand what this is all about.

You missed it entirely Tommy.  Go back on vacation.  The most important
part of this whole thing, which you failed to address, is the LOCATION of
the fetus.


Gordon
-- 

The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion