From: tommyk@castle.ed.ac.uk (T Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Back from Texas - 1 of 2
Date: 15 Apr 92 10:50:47 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Apr10.060000.9344@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>Tommy, I'm others will get to you first.  I want to say that it really
>seemed you were trying to understand, but then you missed the biggest
>point of the issue.

I was trying to understand.
I am trying to understand.
If so far I have failed to do so, call it my fault, but don't give up
on me yet.


>>As far as I can see, here is why Adrienne etc oppose anti-abortion legislation:
>>1. Anti-abortion legislation would compel a woman to obey something that she 
>>   did not herself believe in (or face the consequences).
>
>This doesn't sound familiar to me (I count myself in that "etc" you
>referenced above).  Perhaps if you tacked on, "for no good reason" to the
>end of your above statement.

Of course. See point 2. below.

>>THEREFORE SURELY, I demand, anti-abortion laws are no worse than anti murder
>>laws.
>
>Yes, they are.  Anti-murder laws protect us all.  Anti-abortion laws
>protect the pro-lifers feelings from being offended.

Anti-abortion laws may protect pro-lifers feelings, but they also
protect foetuses (at least they do so to the same extent that anti-murder
laws protect the rest of us).

So we have anti-murder laws that protect everyone except foetuses - and also
protect the feelings of anti-murder supporters.

And we have anti-abortion laws that protect foetuses - and also protect
the feelings of anti-abortion supporters.

The only difference (to someone who disregards the nature of the foetus)
is the location of the foetus.

Now so what?

Can you give me a compelling argument as to why the location is RELEVANT?



>I'm afraid this looks like a strawman to me.

I've never understood what a strawman is.  Please explain.

>
>>AH BUT, explain Adrienne etc:
>>2. The compulsion imposed by anti-abortion legislation is a result of a
>>   a system of unprovable beliefs.  These are often criticised as being
>>   "religious" beliefs.
>>   So it is not simply that the law would compel - but further that it
>>   would compel for NO GOOD REASON.
>
>You horses in the middle of that stream there.  If abortion laws are based
>on religious beliefs they are unconstitutional.  This would be a bad
>precedent indeed.

It would indeed.  That is possibly a good argument against anti-abortion
laws and one that, for the moment I am willing to accept.

PROVIDED, you can explain to me why anti-murder laws, anti-rape laws, etc
all manage to be exempt from your criticism.

Aren't anti-murder laws based on unprovable beliefs?

>
>>THEREFORE SURELY, I demand, anti-abortion laws are no worse than anti murder
>>laws.           
>
>Yes, they are.  Anti-murder laws protect us all.  Anti-abortion laws
>protect the pro-lifers feelings from being offended.

See above.


>>AH BUT, explain Adrienne etc:
>>	(N.B. THIS, is the VERY IMPORTANT BIT.  THIS, is the keystone of
>>	 Adrienne's stance)
>>
>>3. If I impose on people by law, then I may be next to get imposed on.
>>   So finally, it is not a matter of rightness or wrongness.  It is a matter 
>>   of fear.  I must restrain from enacting any law which Adrienne doesn't want,
>>   because otherwise I'll be next!
>
>It is a real concern.  

Of course it is.  I agree.

But you already do this imposition.  If someone believes that it is their
right - or their duty - to withold taxes from the state, your laws impose upon
them.

>>	BUT, all legislation is like that.  
>
>No it isn't.

'Tis too!

>>So what is different about proposed anti-abortion laws?

>They force a woman into involuntary servitude.  

I am a father.  I cannot simply put my children out of the house and
refuse to feed them - I would be prosecuted if I did.
Voila - "involuntary" servitude (i.e. even if I didn't want to do it, I would
still be compelled to).

To someone who believes that raping women is OK, your laws enslave him.
And to him, for no good reason!

>Again, somthing that is
>strictly forbidded in the constitution (except for the gray areas of
>convicted felons and war time conscription).

WHat is gray about a convicted felon!?

Why does he lose his right?  Because *you* say so?
Surely it is because *WE* say so?

And its because *WE* say he has done wrong - or more likely because
*WE* say he is a danger.

And in that case, why can't *WE* say that a pregnant woman should
normally carry to term?


>>If they are to be shunned because they may open the door to laws that restrict
>>me - then I should also shun laws against rape, murder, robbery - because 
>>somewhere out there maybe a rapist, a murderer and a robber will enact
>>an anti-tommy law.
>
>Not at all.  Can't you see that laws against rape, murder and theft all
>deal with a *victim*.  There isn't a victim in abortion.

The implication here is that IF THERE WAS A VICTIM, then you may treat 
things differently.

I will consider that argument from someone who considers the value of
the foetus to be zero BUT RELEVANT.

I will not consider that argument from someone who claims that the value
of the foetus is IRRELEVANT (apart from that value conferred or denied by
virtue of its location).  To such a person, EVEN IF THE FOETUS WAS A VICTIM,
it wouldnt matter.

Almost all abortions kill the foetus.  So the foetus is a victim.

The question is, does that matter?

It doesn't matter to Adrienne etc.  Does it matter to you?

Well, suppose the foetus is a late third-term foetus - completely viable.
Does it matter?

>Tommy, if it was possible for someone to take a small animal and stick
>inside your body for 9 months to grow and stretch your body cavity,
>endanger your life, and make you possibly lose your job and/or education,
>ALL against your will, you might really understand what this is all about.

Unfair Gordon.  Should all men shutup about this then.

Doesn't it matter that my wife puts forward identical arguments to mine?

>You missed it entirely Tommy.  Go back on vacation.  The most important
>part of this whole thing, which you failed to address, is the LOCATION of
>the fetus.

I'm sorry you feel that way.  I didn't purposely avoid the location aspect.

I thought I was dealing with it.

Maybe I failed in that - but *maybe* you didnt get what I was saying.

THE POINT is - in part 1 - that there is no compelling reason why I *should*
regard location as being RELEVANT.

(That's not to say that I do so disregard it). 

I am willing to listen to your arguments as to why it is important enough.

tommy
Newsgroups: talk.abortion