From: mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What's EASY and DIFFICULT in abortion.
Date: 11 Sep 1992 13:47:57 -0400
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc., Vienna, VA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gilligan.east.sun.com

In article <43776@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk>, tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes:

	I chopped out a whole bunch of \n's here, to save space.
	I left all your comments intact, however...

> 
> That "only reason" indicates that indeed we don't differ.
> I want certain rights to be given to the foetus because there
> are those who would have them taken away.
> Exactly the same - except we are applying different values to different
> things.

But the idea here is that the f(o)etus is none of your concern,
and in theory it never should be. In my eyes, you are placing
your opinions about how life should be lived over my right to
live my life according to my beliefs. As far as you are (or
should be) concerned, there may or may not be a f(o)etus, to
begin with. I maintain that it's really none of your concern.

> If pro-choicers would keep their beliefs (that abortion should
> not be legislated against) to themselves then I would not be
> arguing this point.
> We are quite balanced on this.
> You value certain individual rights more than you value the rights
> of a foetus to live.
> And I value the opposite.

And whose beliefs intrude furthest on whom (In the present, with
regard to living human beings)?

> Similarly, since they (pro-choicers) seem to want everyone to live by
> their rules (that abortion mustn't be legislated against), those of
> us who care are force to fight for our freedom (to legislate against 
> abortion).

Freedom to legislate?? Again, the idea here is to do as little
dictating as possible (I'm assuming here that you actually sup-
port individual freedom).

> I do not wish to force anyone to support legislation
> I just want to make sure that I have the choice to support legislation...

No, but you wish to force me to live by a value judgement that
I do not agree with, knowing that it's against my will.

> That "asking" becomes "forcing" when you support aspects of the Constitution
> which forbid certain laws - laws which I would otherwise vote for.
> Your value (that abortion should not be legislated against) is being
> foisted on Americans who believe that abortion should be legislated against.
> You get what you want - at their expense.
> At least that was the case - I can't keep track of what the current 
> interpretation of the Constitution is.

But is it really "at their expense"? I see it as "No, you cannot
do this, because it infringes upon the legislated party's rights".
It does not infringe upon your rights, it just says that you can
not create legislation that restricts the autonomy of others.

> It is most certainly intrusive.
> It stops me (or rather a like-minded American) from having a certain law.
> It says "You do not have the right to have such a law".
> It says "Under these circumstances you must do without such legislation".
> That is based on values other than mine. It is being foisted on me.
> And worse - it based on someone else's *arbitrary* values. 

No, it says you cannot make a law that is inherently intrusive.

> From what do they protect those rights?
> Surely it is against potential violators?  And if those violators happen
> to disagree with the law - then tough on them right?  The law gets foisted
> on them.

No, as I said good legislation prohibits people from harming
others, stealing from them, or prying into others' personal
lives. It does not enforce moral judgements, it prevents the
violation of others' rights.

> You just said that "good legislation protects the rights of others".
> Why do we try to do that if we don't value those rights?
> What else are those rights but a codifying of commonly held values.

We (assumably) subscribe to the notion that each person in this
country is autonomous, and has certain rights which cannot be
violated. I don't see these rights as values at all. I see them
as basic premises to individual freedom.

> Then why do we have law at all?
> And, again, if law is their to protect "rights", then whence came those
> "rights".
> You (I guess) believe that a woman should maintain a right to abort.
> I disagree with you.
> Who is right?
> I believe that a woman has a right to not be raped.
> Some rapists (psycopaths perhaps) may disagree.
> Who is right?
> If we only do what we believe, despite what the law says, then surely
> law is just an arbitrary set of actions which - if committed or omitted,
> depending on the law - will result in prosecution?

Like I said before, good laws protect the autonomy of people.
Rape is an example of the violation of the autonomy of another.
Abortion is personal autonomy. A law banning abortion violates
another's personal autonomy. My right to have an abortion does
not in any way violate your autonomy.

-- Mike

---------------------------------------------------------------
As I once saw in another newsgroup...

"I'd be surprised if my employer would want my opinion!"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion