From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Summary: Is abortion only a religious issue?
Keywords: abortion, religion
Date: 23 Jan 93 19:59:43 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

In article <1993Jan15.202755.26242@hobbes.kzoo.edu>
k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:
>In article <1213@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>>steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>>the vast majority of
>>>pro-lifers base their views indeed on imagined "christian" ideals...
>>
>>So what?  This is irrelevant to anything I said or believe, or the
>>debate generally.  That people have religious views on abortion, doesn't
>>invalidate the public debate on abortion, any more than it would on
>>murder more generally.
>
>The central issue of abortion is whether or not a fetus deserves the
>same right to live that the rest of us (born) people have.  It is agreed
>by all that an unfertilized egg and a sperm do not have this right;
>it is agreed by all that, nine months later, a newborn child does.
>(Well, not all.  Extremists disagree.  Ignore them.)

I agree fully with that.  In fact, this is exactly what I've been
arguing most recently.

>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.

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

Yes.

>I contend that the only position that can consistently claim that a
>fertilized egg is an unborn person, with the same right to live that I
>have, is a religious one:  that the act of conception creates a soul,
>and that the soul is what distinguishes humans from non-humans.  In
>fact, I believe this is specifically Christian:  the Jewish faith, I
>have been told, holds that the soul begins life with an infant's first
>breath.

Well, this is often said, but it isn't true (that the only basis to be
against abortion is religious or Christian), as I'll explain below.  I
am not a Christian, and my view is not based on any religion.

>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.

[Admonishments not to argue things that in fact I don't argue deleted.]

>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.

I frequently get irked reading these debates because it is often said
that abortion is a religious question, and therefore an individual
matter, not a proper subject for public control or even debate.  Those
for legal abortion often say that those against are just trying to
impose their religious values on everyone else, and in fact, many
people against abortion justify their position on religious grounds,
but this is not just a religious issue.  I'm agnostic, i.e. not
religious. My opposition to abortion has nothing to do with the notion
of sin, a soul, an after-life, or God.  I don't view pregnancy as
punishment.  I have nothing against sex and I don't think it is a sin
outside of marriage.

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).

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 
Use the address below.

* One could argue for birth, but what really changes there from the
point of the child?  Only who is doing the breathing, food digestion,
and temperature regulation.  Is that what it takes to be human?  You
can talk about awareness or some other aspect of brain function, but
again is that your definition of human?  Can we simply kill anyone who
doesn't meet this criteria, such as those in a coma, or with
degenerative brain disease?  More to the point, can individuals make
this determination on their own and act on it for their own convenience?
In general, clearly not, yet that is exactly what is argued for in the
case of abortion.  We don't allow this elsewhere.  Why is abortion a
special case?
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15164 alt.sex:43159 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13833 alt.politics.correct:6371 alt.politics.equality:165 alt.politics.homosexuality:10293 talk.abortion:57911 alt.politics.clinton:21234