From: parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: ==> Clinton/Gore On Women's Issues
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: soc
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 06:32:43 GMT

saqx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes:
>If the fetus is a citizen, then abortion is illegal in all
>cases, period.  If the fetus is not a citizen, then abortion is legal. 
>Period.  The moment before we draw the line and say, "Look--a citizen!", 
>the fetus (or whatever) has the status of a dog, namely, no rights.

I believe you are a citizen when you are born in the United States.
                                         ^^^^
Case closed?

*******************************************************************************

The whole problem with the Abortion Debate (as opposed to problems with one
side or the other, which maybe we shouldn't get into here) is that both sides
completely fail to understand the other's point-of-view, possition, argument,
and truly valid points.  (Ok, "completely" may be a slight exaggeration.)

The "pro-life"/"anti-abortion" side:
(My interpretation may not be perfect, as I disagree with their conclusions.)
"Human life begins at conception."  A fairly valid point.  I would perhaps
state it as "Human life *continues anew* at conception"--a more scientifically
accurate statement, but with essentially the same force (miracle of life stuff)
as the former.  Surely the embryo/fetus/baby is alive at conception and is
undeniably "human" (whatever that is good for).  The "baby" is also "innocent"
(as in "protect the innocent")--I hope no one would dispute that.  There may be
other truly valid points (ones not generally disputed) that I'm missing.
The argument they raise is:  Society has a *duty* to protect the innocent and
to defend human life (at all costs?). (Pro-choice disagrees with the conclusion
because they disagree with the interpretation of our "duty" as a society.)

The "pro-choice"/"pro-abortion" side:
(or my version of it at least)
An unborn baby can not be assumed to have equal status to a fully-sentient
person--especially when he/she/(it?) is not sufficiently developed to survive
outside the womb without unusual medical assistance/protection..ie first/second
trimester or so.  (ok, so the pro-lifers would certainly try to dispute that,
but how?)  {It is not illegal to kill a dog or cat--it's done all the time due
to excessive pet populations--though it is not "right" to do so unnecessarily.
It is even less objecionable to kill a rat or mouse...and why? because they are
not sentient (as far as we can tell).  Surely the "right to life" depends a bit
on sentience and/or interaction with the rest of us people.}  There *are* some
situations where abortion may be reasonable: rape, very young "mother", life of
mother at risk, certainly. Some would argue that being born into abject poverty
or nearly-guaranteed emotionally-painful life is *worse* than not being born at
all.  (pro-life obviously disagrees with either the statement itself, or in how
it is interpreted as meaning that it is our place to make that decision.  "our"
meaning the mother/father/etc involved, not society as a whole as pro-life
would like.)
The argument they raise is:  The unborn baby is not necessarily coverend under
our "societal duty" to protect the life of individuals (perhaps because they
are not *yet* individuals), and the decision of whether or not an abortion is
acceptable as a possible choice is thus ultimately up to the mother (probably
the father, too, in a normal marriage) and not to society as a whole. (Pro-life
of course disagrees with the assignment of "duty" and has a totally different
conclusion.)

Both sides have some valid points.  (I did a pretty lousy job of presenting
unchallengable points for the pro-choice side, considering that's what I agree
with; the full explanation of my support for the right to abortion is quite
long and this post is pretty long already.  Also, I didn't want to give too
much more time to one side than the other in this post.)  They both also make
some reasonable arguments.  Unfortunately, neither side can "prove" it's case
completely.  (Pro-life often(?) relies on religion to back them up, Pro-choice
often relies on philosophical "points" that don't really "prove" any more than
religion does.)  They will never "convince" the true believers of the opposite
side because they can not dispute the "valid points" very successfully, and
usually fail to even *attempt* to dispute the true source of their opponent's
arguments.

The question is, what does the *majority* believe in.  I believe that pro-life
is the minority (a very vocal minority, secure in their beliefs)...sorry I
don't have any statistics on that.  True "pro-abortion" is also a minority (I
think)--because to *claim* to *support* abortion outright is politically
dangerous (due to that very vocal other minority).  The opposition to pro-life
comes mainly from "pro-choice" who sound a little wishy-washy on the whole
thing and have a hard time being taken seriously. (?)  I don't know if the part
of the population after taking out the pro-life, pro-abortion, and those-that-
care-not is a majority, but since those-who-care-not (I know someone who claims
to not support either side: he says it's a non-issue with him.) should hardly
count (and IMHO are "really" pro-choice but don't want to admit it) and the
pro-abortion and pro-choice generally want the same legislation (or lack
thereof?) ...the pro-choice is probably the majority of those who care. (IMO)

One last thing:  to those who refuse to support one side or the other in an
attempt not to offend or upset anyone...you are probably viewed as the enemy by
all groups:  "really" pro-choice {since it matters-not to you}, but too lazy
(similar to not voting kind of lazy) to fight to preserve that choice--to the
pro-choicers;  "really" against abortion like us, but too morally corrupt(?) to
fight against it--to the pro-lifers.    8-)

Don't let any one issue decide the whole thing (IMO, that is one way that
otherwise bad people--for the job--get into office), but *do* decide what you
believe in as best you can, and vote appropriately.  8-)  (public service
announcement?)

(Sorry to go on for so long about pseudo-moral/political stuff.  I thought
there was a group for abortion discussions, but couldn't remember it clearly...
and this started in response to a post here anyway.)  8-)

===============================================================================
Usual disclaimers apply.  Please, no email, flame me here if you must.  8-)
===============================================================================
Xref: sparky soc.women:17789 alt.discrimination:4549