From: ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I Tend To Be Pro-Choice Because:
Date: 13 Aug 92 03:14:25 GMT
Organization: Brigham Young University

Linda Heather Springer (owl.caltech.edu!rowanoak) writes:

#In article <92224.020312ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET>  writes:
#> 1.) I find it UNdesirable to allow a Gestapo-like Orwellian system to
#>  make choices for ME as I consider myself to be quite capable to make my
#>  own. I may make mistakes (in the eyes of God, man, and/or value
#>  system), but at least they will be *my* mistakes, NOT yours or someone
#>  else's.
#
#The American Justice system attempts to balance your freedom of choice
#with the freedom of choice of others.  Killing a human being annihilates
#his/her freedom to choose.  Do you call that fair?
#
Your argument would certainly be valid IF we were discussing a person
EXTERNAL to the woman's womb! A zygote/fetus, however, is in all actuality
SUBJECT to the female body.  Only the mother ought to possess *autonomy*
over what happens inside her womb.  In any regard, according to the U.S.
Justice system, a fetus is NOT considered a human being.  In addition, I
find it rather silly to talk about the fetus' "freedom of choice," since a
fetus has as much a concept of choice and freedom as your appendix does...

I would propose that we ought to be REALLY careful before we legislate
to interfere with a person's bodily autonomy/integrity.  That is what I
meant with making personal choices.  You may educate or counsel a person,
even offer alternatives.  But I don't believe that scrapping Roe vs. Wade
is in the woman's interest, whose choices I must respect even if they are
against my conscience or sense of morality.

#> 2.) I find it highly hypocritical to distinguish between a pregnancy
#>  which was the result of rape/incest, and a pregnancy due to the woman's
#> "free" choice or agency.  Doesn't the developing fetus in both cases
#> possess an independent "right" to develop to personhood? --Indeed, why
#> should *any* fetus be penalized for "wanting" to develop towards
#> personhood?  If the sanctity/continuation of life DOES depend on
#> "external" considerations (such as rape or incest), then WHY not respect
#> the mother's wishes with regard to her pregnancy (bringing it to term or
#>  not) in the first place?
#
#I don't think rape/incest allows a woman to kill an innocent child, just
#as a man whose house was robbed has no right to shoot his innocent
#neighbor.  Rape is a horrible crime, but allowing additional horrible
#crimes because of it is not the solution.
#
A zygote/fetus is NOT "an innocent child." I respect YOUR choices, but if
a raped woman requests an abortion, it seems self-evident to me that she
ought to have that option.  Indeed, who are YOU to force the victim to
"accept" the consequences of that horrible invasion of privacy for nine
more months, perhaps as long as she may live? That is UNequivocally cruel.

If you were shot, wouldn't it be reasonable to remove the bullet (...)?
The parable you used is logically invalid.  I consider it my *right* to
"clean" my house of any contamination, especially if this has been caused
through an involuntary act forced upon me.  Just as killing may be morally
permissable during war, so abortion could also be permissable in the event
of rape or incest.

#> 3.) The public health consequences of prohibiting abortion will be
#> equally horendous.  Countless women will be thrown back to feudal times,
#> feeling no alternatives but to subject themselves to unscrupulous
#> butchers and maniacs for a filthy back-alley clothe-hanger job.
#
#The women have the alternative of carrying the baby to term and giving it
#up to adoption, or keeping it.  I think the government should help fund
#contraception, sex education, and pregnancies, but not abortion.  Using
#the argument that "if we don't allow it, people will take drastic
#measures,"  government-regulated uzis should be handed out so that
#slaughterers won't hurt themselves with misfiring sawed-off shotguns.
#Making abortion legal does not change the wrongness of killing an innocent
#human.  The law is horrendously inconsistent as long as it approves of
#abortion but disapproves of killing a baby right after birth.  Both
#killings are wrong, and approving of one and not the other is illogical.
#

Even if we do not like abortion, it still is and will be an option for
many women. I don't like, e.g., that people have an appetite for alcohol,
yet I think that the Prohibition was the greater mistake.  Likewise, Roe
vs. Wade, though an imperfect law, offers reasonable guarantees for women
who --for better or worse-- choose for a safe and legal abortion.  Going
back to the pre-Roe vs. Wade era does NOT offer us a very promising picture
either, now does it?  (Again, a zygote is NOT a baby.)  I would propose a
nation-wide referendum on abortion, and abide by the majority rule.  You
know, that is called Democracy.  Are you willing to accept the challenge?
#
( ...stuff deleted... )
#
#>     Casper.
#> ** Yes, I dare to voice my OWN opinion.  Do you? **
#
#Is Casper your real name?  Yes, I dare to voice my opinion, and I also
#dare to identify myself.
#
#Linda Springer

Yes Linda, Casper is my real name!  Can you provide evidence that you
are REALLY "Linda Springer," and not some A.I. program?

Casper C. Knies   isscck@byuvm.bitnet