From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Psephological journals
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 11:29:58 PST

In <81930@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, Mark Wilson writes:

>In <93005.54083.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKH

>|I'm certainly not qualified to make policy; I can only give an opinion.  I am
>|of the opinion that (a) abortion sucks; (b) those who seek abortion usually
>|have little regard for life; (c) my opinion shouldn't dictate public policy;
>|(d) people seeking abortions have no right to pick my pocket for something
>|I oppose; and (e) as long as I don't have to pay for it, I have no right to
>|prevent the abortion from occurring.  I would love a world in which no abor-
>|tions occurred.  Yet I recognize that I have no right to force others to compl
>|with *my* personal ideals.

>I'm going to have to take issue with you on this one.

>You are right in that you cannot force people to behave in the manor that
>you approve.
>But do you believe that each of us has an obligation to prevent force or
>fraud.  After all, most libertarians believe that this obligation is the
>only legitimate role for government.

So far, so good.  Remember that we're talking specifically about force or fraud
against *human beings*.

>*IF* abortion kills a human, than outlawing abortion is no less legitimate
>a governmental role, than is outlawing murder.

But as I said before, it's predicated on the *if*.  There is no reasonable
consensus on the "if."  Some think that a fetus is human.  Some think it isn't
human until it's born.  Others think there is some "magical point" in utero at
which a fetus can be considered "like a human being"--and to many, that magical
point varies from a couple of months to the moment that a fetus could survive
outside the womb.

Let me rephrase my original statement.  I *personally* feel that a fetus should
be given the protection of human rights.  However, there is no consensus--
either among the general public or in the scientific community--as to whether
we can and should consider a fetus as "human."  Without such a consensus, it's
not socially feasible to grant "full human" status to the fetus, regardless
of my feelings that we should.  That's why I'm personally opposed to abortion
but (at least for now) I support a woman's right to choose.  When technologies
increase and it's possible to remove a fetus from the womb without killing it,
then and only then will I favor a government-mandated end to methods of preg-
nancy termination which kill fetuses (since it would then be easy to terminate
a pregnancy without killing the fetus).

>Another example.

>How would you feel if I were to say,
>While I am personally opposed to wife beating, I do not believe it falls
>within the power of government to outlaw such things.  I have no right
>to impose my personal ideals on others.

I'd feel that the analogy was flawed because unlike the fetus, there is *no
doubt* that the wife is fully human and has all corresponding rights.  Hence
there is *no doubt* that a human rights violation has occurred.  That is not
true in the case of abortion.

>Most people would be outraged by such a stand.

Yes, but the two situations are not analogous.  Since many don't think that a
fetus is human, there is no human rights violation (in their minds) and hence
no outrage.

>This is how I feel when I hear people say things like what you said above.

Ditto to your statement.


Tim Irvin
******************************************************************************
"In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that
 for religious rights." -- James Madison, Federalist #51