From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: SIMPLE ANSWER
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:39:22 GMT

In article <kefK9b600Uh7Q9hktk@andrew.cmu.edu> Erik Karl Witte <ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>It seems to me that everyone needs to back off from the abortion issue
>and think about it.
>

Many of us have thought 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.
>

Well, you're partially correct.  It is a conflict of rights, but they
are the fundamental right of personal reproductive control vs the
right of a fetus to inhabit a body.


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

The problem with this quite rational thinking is that fundamental rights
aren't, and shouldn't be, decided by a majority.  I would venture to say
that "most" people disapprove of burning the flag, but we do have that
right.

>That doesn't quite work, so look somewhere else, like to Pennsylvania. 
>The Pennsylvania Law which was kept mostly intact by a
>moderate-conservative Supreme Court still makes it illegal for a state

Moderate-conservative?  You've got to be kidding!  forget it, it's not
worth debating....

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

I see that you have drawn an analogy that doesn't quite play.  How easy
is it to access a place that deals in guns?  How easy is it to access a
place that performs abortions?  Not quite the same, is it?  Do you have
to drive up to 10 hours, face an unruly and hostile crowd of protestors
to purchase a gun?  No, I think not.  Your gun analogy fails.  Besides,
plenty of people have an objection to a waiting period for purchasing
guns.  Have you investigated the NRA's position?

If you are indeed in favor of a 24-hour waiting period, are you then
in favor or denying pro-lifers the right to protest and making more
abortion clinics available in order to meet your gun analogy?  Again,
I think not.

so, what's wrong with a waiting period, besides the inconvenience and
general hassle is that is assumes that the woman doesn't have her act
together and if she just waits a little while, she'll know better.  It's
patronizing and humiliating to the woman.

And, going back to your gun analogy, the main reason to wait to purchase
a weapon is to do some sort of a check into the purchaser's background,
not with the reasoning that they need to think it over.

>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.
>

I have no problem with having information available, but I do have a
problem with requiring the information to be given.  I think that
it's nice to ask if the info is wanted, but if the woman says no, then
she shoule be respected.  To do otherwise is again patronizing and 
humiliating as it assumes the women doesn't know her own mind.

>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.
>

Well, I oppose a parental consent law.  On several grounds....
  1--I'm a firm believer in the government staying the hell out of
     my own business (as long as I don't break the law).  I don't
     believe the government has any business regulating family life,
     do you?  The government has enough problems regulating itself.
  2--Do the parents know that their child is screwing?  Most of the
     time they don't.  Therefore, your agrument "Parents should be
     allowed to know what their child is doing" is invalid as most of
     the time, they don't know.  They can only trust that their child
     is behaving according to the values they've instilled. 
  3--Minors are the least likely to avail themselves of the legal
     system--they are the most intimidated by it.  To give them only
     one alternative to telling their parents (something some of them would
     rather die than do) -- going before a judge-- is tantamount to
     giving them no legal alternative, thereby encouraging illegal
     abortions.  Listen to reason here, not emotions.
 and,
  4--if a minor is unfit to decide whether to continue a pregnancy or
     not, what in the hell makes you think that that same minor is fit
     to be a mother?  Or make the decision to give the resulting baby
     up for adoption?  Both motherhood and adoption are much tougher
     decisions to make.  Or, are you suggesting that those decisions
     are best made by another person?  I surely hope not, as one can
     only resolve with themselves if they make their life decisions.
 

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

I don't like it.  I don't like it at all.

In fact, it scares the hell out of me.

Jennifer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion