From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: abortion, religion
Date: 20 Dec 92 22:51:22 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

In article <1992Dec8.222534.453@advtech.uswest.com>
steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>>> = Steve Novak writes:
>>>OK.  I mentioned it only because, to me, such religion-based laws [laws
>>>regulating or banning abortion] violate the seperation of church and
>>>state.
>
>>Abortion is no more strictly a religious issue than murder is.  
>
>Then I see no basis for anti-abortionism being forced on everybody.  It
>becomes a personal issue.

Is murder a personal issue, beyond the purview of public debate and
law? Of course not.  What is or is not murder, what is or is not a
person, and when personhood begins are not simply matters of personal
choice.  They are legitimate issues for public debate and law.

...
>>That many people take a position on this issue (both pro and con) for
>>religious reasons doesn't change whether or not abortion is a
>>legitimate issue for public debate or public law.  
>
>This is obfuscation.  The vast majority of anti-abortionists do indeed
>base their stance not only on religion, but on christianity specifically.

So what?  Many of these same people base their views on stealing and
incest on Christianity too.  That doesn't make it a matter of personal
choice.

>Except for stating that nothing equating abortion with
>murder exists in the bible, I've never heard a pro-choicer use religion
>to justify his/her stance.

You aren't paying attention.  Several people have used that justification
on the NET.  I saved one from alt.activism.d.  In article
<Sep.28.10.39.13.1992.20171@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu
(Susan Hagan) writes:
|In my personal spiritual philosophy, a child is not a child until it 
|inherits a soul.  This soul is not inherited until birth.  At that
|point, the soul deserves the chance to make the most of the life that
|it has chosen, without interference.  Before that point, in the womb,
|the body is a vehicle under construction.  I don't believe that when
|a fetus is lost, it is irreplaceable.  It is the soul that is irreplacable.
|But that soul cannot be destroyed -- at least not by any means that we
|have at our disposal.
|
|Therefore, to force me to carry to term, a fetus that I do not want, to
|me would be ridiculous.  

>And yes, a law based purely on christianity has no business being made
>into law.  That would make our country a theocracy.

I agree.  But abortion pro or con is not based purely on Christianity.

>Forgach would love that, but most people wouldn't.

If "Forgach" is supposed to be me*, then you are wrong.  I think the
question of abortion should be decided by the vote, state by state.

* Have you confused me with Suzanne Forgach?  I haven't see her express
such sympathies, but I could have missed it.

>>Those who favor legal abortion often say, we don't know when human life
>>starts or science can't tell us when human life begins.  This statement
>>can only be made based on (at least) a quasi-religious belief in some
>>extra-biological aspect in what constitutes human life.
>
>No.  There is no quasi-religious belief involved, though I'll bet you'd
>like it to.

What do you mean?

>That statement is saying in essence, "There is no way that YOU can
>prove that YOUR opinion that a fetus is human life worth protecting at
>the expense of an alive, breathing human being's bodily autonomy. Since
>you have no such proof, then kindly practice your own beliefs and leave
>the rest of us alone."

This is the same as saying:

	A) The fetus is not a person* and therefore the mother
	   is free to do as she chooses.

or

	B) The status of the fetus doesn't matter, because the
	   rights of the mother take precedence.  Even if the
	   fetus is a person, abortion is ok.**

Which is it?  You seem to want both positions depending on which is more
convenient.  If I proved position B to be without merit (somehow), my
guess is that you would be undaunted and take position A.

* defined here as a human life worth protecting.

** In other words, in the case of pregnancy, the deliberate killing of a
person for convenience, or any reason, is ok.

>>The biological facts are not in question (at least, not this
>>century), and these, it seems to me, are the only sound basis for
>>deciding what is and isn't human life.
>
>Is there anyone saying a fetus isn't human life?  I think you're missing
>the pro-choice point: the woman involved.

I meant "a human life", i.e. a person.  I'm not missing the pro-choice
point at all.  I simply don't agree with it.

>Of course, the sperm or the egg is human life, too.  And, the main question
>we're confronting here is a woman's right to an abortion, which doesn't
>depend on if a fetus is human life; just if the woman's rights are
>paramount.  

Here you seem to be arguing for B.   I see this position as simply a dodge,
a confusion of the issues.  If we say the unborn child is a person, it may
be correct to say that he has no right to infringe on the mother, but that
certainly doesn't give her the right to kill him, i.e. no claimed non-vital
right can have parity or greater claim than the right of a person (in this
case a fetus) to life.  You can't simply kill a guest who has overstayed
his welcome.  If you say the mother can kill the unborn child, and yet the
unborn child is a person, you are in effect saying that the unborn child is
a class of person different from all other innocent persons in that he has
no right to life.  For the purpose of honest debate on abortion, this is
no different from saying that the unborn child is not a person.

If the fetus is not a person, then abortion needs no further justification,
and there is no need to compare the rights of the mother with those of the
fetus because clearly he doesn't have any.  However, if you say that the
unborn child is not a person, then you are using something other than
biology to define personhood, and hence my "a quasi-religious belief in
some extra-biological aspect in what constitutes human life [personhood]"
comment above.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh