From: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What's EASY and DIFFICULT in abortion.
Date: 14 Sep 92 10:30:45 GMT
Reply-To: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

In article <18qm4dINN3tq@gilligan.East.Sun.COM> mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori) writes:

>But the idea here is that the f(o)etus is none of your concern,
>and in theory it never should be. 

I understand that, but disagree.
I disagree in the same way that I would if a rapist told me that his
victim was none of my concern.

>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. 

True.

But then so are you - if you support a Constitution which stops me
from living my life according to my beliefs (e.g. it stops me from making
certain laws).

Also, if you support anti-rape laws, you also place your opinions over someone
else's.

>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.

I understand that that is your belief.

But I don't accept those beliefs myself.  So why should I act upon them?

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

I'd say they were about equal.

My beliefs intrude on women who want to abort their pregnancies.
Your beliefs intrude on people like me.

>> 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).

Certainly I'd like as few laws as necessary.  But I believe that a law 
restricting abortions is necessary.

And I support individual freedom to a certain extent.
Not to the extent that parents are free to abandon their offspring.

>> 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.

True.

And you do too - if you support restricting my choice of laws.
And we both do if we support restricting rapists, murderers and robbers.

>> 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.

>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".

Absolutely.  I place a very high value on the life of a human being - even a
foetus.  It pains me greatly, and diminishes society - IMHO - for them to
die in such numbers.

And your willingness to restrict my choice of laws is certainly at the expense
of the foetuses.

I know that my views would infringe on the "legislated party's rights".

But so do my views (with their associated laws and punishments) against rape.

>It does not infringe upon your rights, it just says that you can
>not create legislation that restricts the autonomy of others.

"just says"??

That's a bad bad thing to me.

It may not infringe on my "rights" because I have no such "rights" to be
infringed.

But that could be fixed if the Constitution would allow me (or my American 
counterpart) to vote for such rights.  But it doesn't.

I just don't value a blanket granting of "autonomy".

>> 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.

Which is intrusive.

I want that law.  I want it because of my beliefs.

You don't want me to have that law.  You don't want it because of your beliefs.

How come we do what you want? 

>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.

Upon what are "rights" based?

>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 we have a grave problem for two reasons:

1. If I reject those premisses, you are helpless.  The trouble with 
   your premisses is that they appear to be axioms.
	So call them what you will. "values", "rights", "premisses".
   Regardless, if I challenge them, what are you going to do?

2. Sometimes those premisses conflict.
   A rapist may want the freedom to rape a woman - and believes that such
   is OK.
   BUt the woman disagrees.
   Conflict.

   I want freedom to protect foetuses by law.  *Me* - *I* want that freedom,
   based upon those premisses you mentioned.
   And the mother wants the freedom to not be forced to support the foetus.
   SHe also demands her freedom from those premisses.
   Conflict.

>Like I said before, good laws protect the autonomy of people.

You opinion.
Respected, but rejected.

>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.

No of course it doesn't.  You are right, an anti-abortion law *would*
restrict the woman.
ANd your freedom to abort, in itself, doesn't violate my freedom.

BUt if your freedom to abort is sustained by restricting *my* freedom to
choose some laws - *then* I am restricted.

Enforcing a right to abort (as the Constitution appears to do) violates my
freedom to choose a law revoking that abortion right.

Tommy
Newsgroups: talk.abortion