Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 1992 10:33:00 EDT
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: George Bush on abortion

> >Do we have to go through this again?  Bush articulated the compassionate
> >prolife position eloquently.  The question "who else's would it be?"
> >is NOT an admission of prochoice sentiment; it is an acknowledgment of the
> >FACT of the physical situation.  Short of tying his granddaughter to a post
> >and watching her 24 hours a day, he can no more stop her from having an
> >abortion physically than he can stop her, when she is not physically in
> >his presence, from committing suicide, running over small children, or
> >burning down the White House.  That would not make any of those things
> >right.
>
> Surely if someone states that they fully intended to kill someone, then
> it would be perfectly right to restrain that person?
>
> Or is it just that even rabid prolifers can see that abortion /= murder?

What both Bush and Quayle seem to be articulating, in that lovable way
they both have, is the sort of compromise that exists in the European
countries that ban abortion, and that existed to some extent in the US
in the years before Roe.  For example, both Belgium and Ireland prohibit
abortion, but in Belgium it is easy to get a safe, illegal abortion, and
in Ireland you have the right to hop on a boat and go to England to get
an abortion.  So the law is officially anti-abortion, but in practice it
winks at violations.  In other countries there are various legal
obstacles placed in the way of a woman seeking an abortion, but there is
also a wide variation in the way those requirements are interpreted
(ironically, these variations can sometimes make it harder to get
abortions than the law intended, especially if the law puts a lot of
power in the hands of doctors).  So the practical situation is not the
same as the legal situation, and the difference is usually in the
direction of more access than the law seems to allow.

Of course, this kind of compromise is much harder to set up here.  For
one thing, social and geographical conditions here make it much more
difficult to remove yourself to a friendly jurisdiction.  Also, we have
a strong tradition of believing that law should clearly protect
individual rights, not try to arrange some kind of face-saving social
conpromise.  Also, there is a stronger sentiment here that the question
does not belong in the legislative realm at all.  And since such a
compromise sets up a clear double standard based on wealth and mobility,
it violates our conception of equal treatment under the law.

> >No human being has the ABILITY to stop another from performing an act without
> >both physical proximity and physical coercion.  Surely he made this clear
> >by referencing other heinous acts she might decide to commit.  Prolife
> >people do not live in a fantasy world.  They recognize that there is a
> >certain point at which nothing more can be done.  Once an evil act has
> >been committed, they recognize, as well, the duty to extend forgiveness
> >and love to those who have committed the act.
>
> Yes, but what if it _hasn't_ been committed yet? Surely then it is the
> prolifer's duty to prevent the crime happening?

Lots of prolifers have articulated just that position.  So, it would
seem, has Marilyn "we'll make that decision together" Quayle  :-).

It's sad that neither man was asked the REAL question.  Of course
people love their children whatever they do--that's a non-issue.  They
should have been asked whether they think that the law should have made
criminals of the young women involved.  Would they really accept the
sight of their family members being arrested, tried and punished for
having an abortion?  Bush sidestepped this issue in 1988, as you'll
remember, first saying that the woman is as culpable as the doctor who
performs an abortion, then backing off and saying that the doctor is
the only one who should be punished.  I haven't seen much that Quayle
has said on that particular question.  But both of them have run, and
are planning to run again, on a platform that would make criminals of
the daughter and granddaughter they say they will love and accept.

That's the problem with some reporters--they quit too soon  :-).

BTW, when Sweden (Dan, Jay, is that the right number of E's :-)
enacted its liberalized abortion law it simultaneously set up a
program that expanded education about and access to contraceptives.
Since then, its rates of both teenage pregnancy and teenage abortion
have fallen.

Best,
Peter

> clive P a u l  M o l o n e y "Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the  re
> james Trinity College,Dublin PMOLONEY%MATHS.TCD.IE@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU mind." v

>> is Kerry S.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU