From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: I became pro-life...and pro-choice...
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:05:42 GMT


I can't say I was always pro-choice.  I can't say I was always pro-life.
There was a time when I was neither.  As I became older, I found that
I became able to vote and that forced me to consider several positions.
I can't say I always voted after I reached that age, either.  Oh, I can
claim I always voted in the major national elections, but I sometimes
ignored (and still do, although to a lesser extent) some of the 
seemingly smaller and local issues.  

One of the things about the criminal justice system that has puzzled
me to a certain extent is the belief that many have that laws will 
have an inhibitory effect on those practices that many wish to make
illegal.  While this is true in some cases, it is hardly true in
others.  I spent a number of years with outstanding warrants for my
arrest.  It didn't matter to me whether or not something was illegal,
I was subject to arrest anyway.  Legality didn't matter to virtually
anyone in the groups I was with during that time either, they were
in much the same boat.  

What I didn't realize at the time is that some things we didn't do,
and some things we did, not because of their legal status, but 
because of our own personal code (or morality, or whatever you want
to call it).   Sometimes the code agreed with legality, sometimes 
it didn't.  I have since observed that many, many (the majority,
I hope) people will act in accordance with their beliefs, regardless
of what the law says.  

Some people, often those who have lived a rather privileged and 
protected existence, will assert that life can be rationalized,
abstracted, and distilled and the result can be used for legal
reasoning.  They tend to believe there is some "justice" the
legal system serves, rather than acknowledging that the whole 
system was largely instituted by a minority who thought they 
knew best.  This legal system often works more to protect them
and their way of life than it does to serve any kind of impartial
"justice."  Legal systems, much like history being written by the 
victorious, are instituted by those in charge, and rarely by those 
currently out of favor in government.  Some measures have been taken 
to curb possible abuse by those in power, a fairly recent example is 
our own Bill of Rights, now incorporated in the US Constitution.

In the specific case of abortion, little evidence has been 
presented that an inhibitory effect would be the result.  In
other words, no one has yet come up with examples or figures 
which might lead one to believe that if their (or any proposed)
legislation were adopted abortion rates would decline.  As a matter
of fact, figures have been posted about Brazil which might
lead one to think that exactly the opposite would happen.
By the same token, no one has demonstrated that such legislation
is necessary.  This despite my incessant whining that someone
please do so.  Oh, several people have promised to do so, but they
never have.  I think I irritate enough people that this would be 
done if only to try to shut me up.

If there is no demonstrable inhibitory effect of abortion legislation,
one must conclude that the main effect is to be punishment.  Even
an assumption of an inhibitory effect must be based largely
on the fear of punishment, rather than on any positive effect
such legislation might have.  

I came to a decision some 20 years ago that life was pretty important.
So important to me, as a matter of fact, that I could see no way
that I could ever rationalize taking a life.  Certain people have
exceptions to this, such as self defense, or in the case of military
service, a lawful order.  It was the realization that I couldn't even
guarantee that I would carry out a lawful order that led to my
discharge (honorable, btw, that means in part that a whole crew of
military officers including psychiatrists, chaplains, lawyers, etc.
decided I was both sane and sincere) from the US military.  I 
characterized myself then, and do now, as being pro-life.  Perhaps
more radically so than many. 

I was somewhat disappointed, then, to visit with various groups that
postured as being pro-life, but were exceedingly narrow-minded
about one area in particular, that being abortion legislation.
Not only were they convinced that such legislation should be 
enacted, they were intolerant of any other opinion.  That is
perhaps the main reason I refer to so many "pro-life" types here
on the net as being instead "pro-legislation."

I have to ponder what motive people might have, however good they
might protest their intentions are, who promote fear and
punishment as even a partial solution to what they describe as a 
problem.  Perhaps fear and punishment is necessary with training 
dogs and small children, but the jury is even out on that.  

You can be truly pro-life and oppose any attempt at bringing
legislation to bear in the case of abortion.  Respect for life
hardly implies or demands a particular legislative agenda.
Pro-life can mean many things.  Here it often means a 
legislative agenda and a desire to bring fear and punishment
to bear on abortion.  Pro-choice can mean many things too.
Here it often means opposition of any legislation which
would restrict abortion.

To put it in another light, I would oppose any legislative attempt
to ban war, although hardly anyone, including the US military, would
refer to me as being "pro-war."

There is quite a difference between "what if they gave a war
and nobody came" and "what if they gave a war and it was illegal
to come."  Perhaps that difference is lost on some of those who
claim to be pro-life.
--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54356 alt.flame:17654