Newsgroups: alt.callahans

>     Doug claims to be a moderate on this issue, but I'm not sure there is
>such a thing.  The problem is that there are THREE distinct positions, one of
>which is (mis)represented as a compromise.

Threr IS such a thing as a moderate.  A moderate is someone who
thinks it is time to compromise and move beyond this divisive and
damaging politicat terror game.  A moderate is willing to 
consider the extremist views on each side as disingenuous and
self-serving.  A moderate can grant that restriction of
access to abortion is, in fact, oppressive to women, but that
making it a little less convenient is not necessarily oppressive.

>     All but the most extreme radical proponents of access to abortion will
>concede that the foetus is (at least potentially human); that abortion is, on
>that basis, a decision of serious moral consequence. 

Certainly.  Many people oppose the idea of abortion in the third trimester.
Examining the boundary condition of five minutes before birth and five
minutes after birth, one can ask the quistion, "Is it really birth
that creates the humanity of the subject?"  If not, is it appropriate
for society to have the right to protect the life of the human in
the womb, and if so, when does it BECOME human?"

> The only real argument
>against this view is that its fanatical proponents are too often ready to
>*demand* literally any sacrifice from the mother involved, up to and including
>the risk of her own life.  Somehow, this potential human becomes entitled to
>rights which are not merely equal to, but superior to, those of actual humans.

The realities of human birth are an extremely tricky thing.  The legailies
are insanely complex.  My OPINION is that the life of the child
should NEVER be REQUIRED to take precedence over the life of the woman.
But this is only really a problem after the defined, "beginning of
human life."  The pro-life extremists place this at conception.

>     A second faction takes a more "liberal" view.  It recognizes that abortion
>is a serious matter with heavy moral implications, but also that sometimes the
>interests of actual humans must take precedence over those of potential humans.

Yes, but they disingenuously deny that there is a point in the womb (perhaps)
when the fetus ceases to become a potential human, and is now an actual
human.  My five minutes before birth example is indicative that this
may be the case.  

Even in this case I would grant that some interests of the woman
should take precedence over those of the fetus.

>Proponents of this view claim that they represent the "reasonable compromise".
>     These are the folks who would allow abortions to be performed in case of
>rape, incest, or soemtimes threat to the health of the mother.  (The latter is
>kind of a moot point, since the mortality rate of carrying a foetus to term is
>considerably higher than that of an early abortion....)

This is not the moderate position that I have.  I think that women should
have more acess to abortion than the list that you have given above.
Still, I recognize that at some point, this fetus becomes human, and
it is not so unreasonable to think that it should have SOME protection
under the law.  This is an assertion that is still somewhat opressive
to women, and that is certainly an unfortunate fact.  But abortions
in the third trimester are already rare, and I suspect that the
protection that I am talking about is a third trimester thing.
I would think that a reasonable beginning point for fetal protection
is the point where the baby could survive with little or no
heroic medical intervention.  To my knowledge, this is very late
in the pregnancy.


>     Critics from the pro-choice side regard this option as saying that
>abortion is legal, but the government (or its agents) decide who can have one
>and who cannot.  (As usual, "freedom of choice" consists of the option, for
>women with money, to travel to another jurisdiction.)  Opponents from the "pro-
>life" side don't want "their" government to provide abortions for anyone.

I honestly think that women of all income levels should have equal access
to affordable and safe abortions through most of the term of the
pregnancy.  I also think it is not unreasonable to assert that the
child MAY become a human, and hence have rights to legal protection,
at some point BEFORE birth.  I consider this to be a moderate position.
I reject almost completely many of the extremist arguments on both sides
of the issue.  

>     The pro-choice position is that adult women are adults, capable of making
>responsible moral choices; that faced with the choice between becoming a mother
>and not, the woman herself is in the very best position to judge.

This is absolutely the case.  But children have legal rights to protection
under the law, and I suspect that it is slightly disingenous to suggest
that it is the fact of birht that gives a fetus its humanity.  In my
opinion, it would be more or less acceptable if society wanted to
DEFINE birth as the enabler of humanity and grant no rights whatsoever
to fetuses, but I think this is a somewhat unlikely definition.

Finally, I do not intend to be sucked into this debate in general,
because people that argue about it almost NEVER seek compromise.
For most people who are vocal about it, it is a source
of unmitigated self-righteousness and fanaticism.


doug 

Newsgroups: alt.callahans