Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: I Continue To Be Pro-Choice Because:
From: <ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET>
Date: Saturday, 5 Sep 1992 13:35:53 MDT
Organization: Brigham Young University


Dear supporters for Choice and Reason!  --As the one who started the "I Tend
To Be Pro-Choice Because" discussion (for better or worse), I feel inclined
to summarize my concerns w/ regard to the "Pro-Life" line of thought (or, I
might add, their "sloppy wet excreta"). It is my opinion that the pro-choice
arguments are the stronger of the two.  In any regard, you may CHOOSE!

1.) IF abortion is "inherently evil" (==> "murder of little babies," e.g.),
    HOW can a "pro-lifer" condone ANY abortions at all, regardless whether a
    pregnancy was caused due to rape/incest or in case of a life-threatening
    situation (due to pregnancy)?  --You see, IF abortion is "blatantly evil"
    (as a bunch of Neo-Inquisitionaries mumbles), than a zygote/embryo/fetus/
    baby/blob of cells/whatever, has the exact SAME right to life/live as any
    "wanted" pregnancy.  In other words, it can be argued that the presence
    of any z/e/f/b/b.o.c./w in the mother's womb has an independent claim to
    life, and that you cannot "penalize" a z/e/f/etc. of why it "got there."

    It may be obvious that this particular view denies the woman's autonomy
    over her body, and blatantly ignores HER opinion and wishes.  What kind
    of mindset does it take to FORCE a woman to bear the rapist's child to
    term?  What? --"Two wrongs doesn't make one right"??  --"Right" to whom?
    --You?  What about HER right to choose?  What gives you the right to act
    as her conscience?  Why not give the woman the right to be a judge over
    HER situation, options and choices?  Leave the choice to the woman.  She
    may make "mistakes" (right and wrong are too judgemental to me: choices
    either "work" or "don't work"), but at least the choice(s) will be hers,
    NOT yours or mine, and --please-- absolutely and positively NOT the
    government's either in these highly personal and private matters.

2.) Suppose that the forces of "life" have succeeded in legally banning all
    or most abortions (the latter option would be logically inconsistent w/
    the "inherently evil nature of abortion"; if abortion is murder, it IS
    murder under all circumstances, and not just when we legislate it to be
    "okay"), then what?  --ARE WE GOING TO THROW WOMEN INTO JAIL WHO HAVE
    COMMITTED AN ABORTION (w/ or w/out the assistance of a doctor)???  And
    what about women who have/will commit(ted) multiple abortions?  --Are
    we thinking death-row here?  Re-education camps?  Forcing these women
    to become pregnant and require them to carry the z/e/f to term?  Hmmm?
    Appointing womb-patrols or gestapo baby-squads?  --Given the right-wing
    extremism amongst our friends the Republicans, such legislation might
    just make it...  (Remember this when you cast your vote(s) this year!)

3.) Pro-Choice doesn't necessarily mean that one is pro-abortion.  It means
    what it says: introducing CHOICE or options when they're applicable. If
    Doug H.'s wife chooses to bring her child to term, that is her CHOICE.
    If Quayle's daughter (or Bush's grand-daughter) chooses an abortion,
    then that is her CHOICE as well.  People will have to live w/ THEIR
    choices: educate them, instruct them, offer alternatives, etc. but
    please never force them to do the "right" thing...

Casper C. Knies    isscck@byuvm.bitnet
                   isscck@vm.byu.edu