From: smezias@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Stephen J. Mezias)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: God bless Erik Karl Witte, the voice of reason!
Keywords: Clueless newbie proposes to solve abortion issue.
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:39:27 GMT
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

In article <kefK9b600Uh7Q9hktk@andrew.cmu.edu> ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu
(Erik Karl Witte) writes: 

>It seems to me that everyone needs to back off from the abortion issue
>and think about it.
 I notice you are leading the way on this.

>Abortion is a matter of a conflict of rights - the right of a woman to
>have an abortion, and the right of the fetus to come live a life.

More precisely, the right of a person to bodily autonomy and the right
of a fetus to life.

>One thing everyone can agree upon is that no one can agree.  The obvious
>answer is - compromise!  How do we compromise on this issue?  
>
>Well, you
>start by shooting the anti - abortion lunatics and the pro - abortion
>lunatics, because they only cloud the issue.

Ah, the voice of reason at work here.  Please give an example of
statements that qualify as `lunatic pro-choice'?

>  In the end, what most
>people want (according to just about every poll - CNN Gallup, ABC
>Gallup, and a number of others) is that most people favor restricted
>abortions.  People want for abortions to be legal but not used.
>That doesn't quite work, so look somewhere else, like to Pennsylvania. 

What doesn't work?  I don't understand.  I think abortions are
undesirable, but recognize the right of a woman to choose them.  Hence
I faovr keeping the right to choose but enacting policies that prevent
unwanted preganancies and remove obstacles to carrying pregnancies to
term.  What's unworkable about this?

>The Pennsylvania Law which was kept mostly intact by a
>moderate-conservative Supreme Court still makes it illegal for a state
>to ban abortions.  However, it supports the constitutionality of a
>number of simple restrictions, all of which are based upon simple tenets
>of thought in our society.
>
>For example, the waiting period.  What's wrong with making people wait a
>day for an abortion?  Nobody has any problem with it for guns.

Which simple tenet requires a waiting period?  You need an
appendectomy; what tenet of thought in our society requires you to
wait 24 hours to get it?   Many people have a problem with waiting
periods for guns, why do you want to extend them to abortions?

>  A day's
>wait would save many people's lives in the case of voluntary
>manslaughter, a similar case of something done in a heat of passion, or
>any kind of emotional rage.  Forcing a person to wait at least tries to
>insure that they think about their decision.

Your explanation of why you support waiting periods shows real
contempt for the ability of women to make choices about their own
bodies.  Do you want to be forced to wait a day for your appendectomy
so that you can think about the decision?  Do you think women only
choose abortions on a whim?  In a PMS rage?  As casually as they order
a pair of shoes?  Why not assume that women take the decision to get
abortion surgery very seriously, the same way we assume that people
take the decision to get any other surgery seriously?

>The same goes for abortion alternatives information.  Providing
>information is something that is easy to do.  Give women pamphlets to
>read during their one-day wait.  They don't have to read them if they
>don't want to, and then they at least have the opportunity of making an
>intelligent choice.

You seem to imply that women cannot make an intelligent choice without
the state instructing them about what materials they should read.  Do 
you want a law telling you that you need to know about vasectomy
alternatives prior to choosing one?  

>How about the parental consent law.  Parents should be allowed to know
>what their child is doing.  If the child goes ahead and has an abortion
>with a judge's consent, the parents can punish that child for their
>decision if they wish.  This is such a simple concept it is hard to
>believe anyone should be opposed to it.

The argument against parental consent is simple: Scared children
(perhaps because they have lunatic pro-life parents) will try to abort
illegally rather than get parental permission.  This will kill them.
If you think that the rights of these children to life are superseded
by the right of the parents to control what their children are doing,
that is your opinion.  I think those of us who oppose such
restrictions disagree.  I hardly think this qualifies as a `lunatic'
position.   

>Americans don't want abortions banned outright, they don't want
>pregnancies to be free of responsibility, and they don't want to pay for
>other people's abortions.  Find a middle road.  It's hard to believe
>anyone can't like the Pennsylvania Law.  It should be made national. 
>How about it?

How does supporting abortions free pregnancies of responsibility?  If
you are implying that abortion is not a responsible choice, please
explain your reasons.

>Erik Witte
>   - Open your eyes, the solution is before you. -

Your solution is before us and I bet you wouldn't support it if you
had to live with the possibility of becoming pregnant and being
subjected to the restrictions about which you are so non-chalant.