From: noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan)
Subject: Re: Reconciling OT with NT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:11:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.203138.23098@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
|> Followup set to talk.abortion
|> 
|> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes ...
|> >What are laws if not an attempt to force majority morals on the minority?
|> 
|> Self interest.  Laws against murder, theft, etc., exist because
|> without them each of us would run a greater risk of being the victim 
|> of such crimes, and society as a whole probably would not work very
|> well.  Thus, it is in my interest and in society's interest to
|> prohibit those things which harm me and society.
|> 
|> Now then, how does this principle apply to abortion?  Clearly
|> self-interest is not an issue, since neither you nor I will be harmed
|> by an abortion.  And the case of society being harmed by the
|> availability of abortion is also doubtful.  Quite the contrary, a
|> decent case can be made for available abortions being of benefit to
|> society.

Why are there hate crime laws?  I am not a homosexual, so why should I
support a law that protects homosexuals.  I am not a Jew, so why should
I support a law that protects Jews?  I am not a fetus, so why should
I support a law that protects fetuses? (feti?)  Is this something like
what you are saying?

Now, if you say that the fetus is not a person, then I see your point
more clearly.  And you are right, if the fetus or whatever is not a
person, then clearly abortion is good for society.

|> >Also, why should the federal government have jurisdiction here.  What is
|> >the precedent for the federal government to become involved in what
|> >clearly seems to be a state issue to me.  There are no federal laws
|> >against murder or stealing (unless it involves state borders or government
|> >property).  Why is abortion special in this respect?
|> 
|> Why should _any_ government have jurisdiction here?  It is a
|> fundamental principle of law that a person's property may not be taken
|> or used without either that person's consent or due process of law.

I think that this is a state issue too.  The states all have laws
regarding property possession.  Would you argue that these laws are
not appropriate, or that the states should not have jurisdiction
concerning, say, auto-theft?  If abortion really is a property issue,
then it would seem to me that it is an issue tailor made for the states.

When you say "fundamental principle of law," do you mean a "fundamental
belief of society"?  I was not aware that there are any fundamental laws
that all societies have.  Indeed, I could probably name a society in
which personal property was of little importance.  Perhaps a socialistic
society?

|> And highest on the list of properties is a person's own body.  How
|> then do you justify taking the use of a woman's body and giving it to
|> someone else without either due process or compensation?

Due process comes through state laws.

|> >These are honest questions.  I expect some flames, but I would love for
|> >someone to calmly present a few answers, for indeed, I am no expert and
|> >am new to this forum.
|> 
|> Fair enough.  Those are my comments, and without any flames.

Thank you.  It was very refreshing.  As you can see, however, I still
have several questions.

|> -- 
|> Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
|> ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche

Mike Noonan
Newsgroups: talk.abortion