Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:47:35 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: prolifers and informed discussion

>> >One of the things I've noticed
>> >about the prolife movement, in general, is that it has totally failed to
>> >come to terms with arguments such as the one that Richard has been
>> >making--that no person has the right to use another's body without that
>> >person's consent.
>>
>> They have no greater obligation to do than than people who favor taxes
>> (or even my no-tax system).
>
>If they don't, they shouldn't complain about not getting the respect
>they think is due them.

That respect isn't withheld from others who don't accept that
obligation.  Why are pro-lifers any different?

>> Restricting abortion is placing restrictions on how someone may use
>> their body, but we do that all the time.  We have lots of reasons for
>> doing so, and the pro-life folks don't have to meet a significantly
>> higher standard than anyone else who advocates controls, no matter how
>> convenient that would be to the (misnamed) pro-choice folks.  It would
>> be nice if the standard was higher in general, but that's not an
>> abortion argument
>
>Let's see--the fact that the people who advocate restrictions or
>outright prohibitions on abortion are unable to explain WHY we should do
>so, without relying on theology, or to refute significant arguments on
>the other side, is not a reason to refrain from enacting their desires
>into law.  Is that what you're saying?

I disagree with the claim about their arguments, but even if I agreed
with it, I note that no one else is held to that standard.  I'm
perfectly willing to agree that the currently accepted standard is
inadequate, but see no reason to treat pro-lifers any different.

>> >It is just about universally agreed that more illegal
>> >abortions means more women injured and killed.
>>
>> Interestingly enough, the pro-choice folks insist on exaggerated
>> estimates.  They also assume that there won't be any reduction in
>> "unwanted" pregnancy, which results in that might well justify those
>> deaths.
>>
>> We've already established that life isn't sacred when a fetus is
>> involved; do we really have to reargue the point with respect to
>> women?  Costs and benefits....
>
>Thank you for making my point for me.  Although women who contemplate
>abortion rarely treat the death of the fetus in as cavalier a fashion
>as you treat the death of an adult woman.

As I treat the death of an adult woman?  Get a grip.  I'm one of the
few admitted pro-abortion people on the list.

Let's use the exaggerated estimates; 10k women for 1.5 million
fetuses.  How many feti is an adult woman worth? 10?  100?
1000?  1.5 million?

>> >Reliable sex education, access to contraceptives
>>
>> Since neither is a significant factor in unwanted pregnancies, fixing
>> them can't help.  (Of course, it might be that the abortion
>> constraints were a significant factor in reducing the number of
>> unwanted pregnancies, but that argues against the pro-choice
>> viewpoint, so I'll let someone else make that argument.)
>
>Interesting assertions.  Got any evidence?

Yes.  My father used to work with 7th graders, a surprising fraction
of which were either pregnant or parents.  Before then he worked with
older kids.  I've hung around such kids myself.  Some of my friends
did pregancy counseling (abortion services).

The vast majority were "I didn't care if I got pregnant" and "I wanted
to get pregnant" and the pre-pregancy attitudes were similar; knowing
how to not get pregnant can't affect those pregnancies.  (One of the
really heartbreaking reasons was "I wanted someone who would like
me".)

>> >, health care and income support for mothers are just not
>>
>> I see pro-life folks running adoption services and homes for
>> unwed mothers all the time.  If you don't see them, you can
>> blame your eyes or the media.
>
>We had both long before there was a "pro-life" movement.

Not run by pro-life movement people.  Maybe some of people were
doing the walk before they did the talk, but I don't see why
that would count against them.

>You may recall
>(or then again you may not) that my argument was that if the pro-life
>movement wanted to have a significant and POSITIVE effect on society,
>they would make these the spearhead of their program.

And, my argument is that you don't get to define significant and
positive effect.  Sure, it's nice to argue that one's political
opponents can't participate unless they meet obligations that would
interfere in their participation, but ....

>They have instead chosen to direct their efforts toward changing the
>law (a fine thing to do, if counterproductive), and interfering with
>the freedom of women until the law is changed to reduce or remove that
>freedom (a rather less fine thing to do).

I have no objection to treating pro-live civil disobedience any
differently than we do ANY other political civil disobedience.
Feel free to argue that it should be treated differently....

>> >Now it seems to me that if the prolife movement wants to have a truly
>> >positive effect on the society as a whole, it would accept the legality
>> >of abortion (because of the negative effects of prohibition) and work on
>> >the sentiments of the public.  In other words, don't alienate, teach.
>> >That way the good effects of every prevented abortion won't be erased by
>> >the bad effects of deaths, injuries and societal division.
>>
>> Interestingly enough, that's Jay's position on abortion....
>
>No, it's not.  He supports legal restrictions on abortion as well.

His restrictions are the legal ones....

>Nothing at all wrong with that ad.  What's offensive is when supporters
>of the ad start blaming people for making different choices.

Note that that "offensive" standard only applies to pro-life folks.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU