From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 15:03:38 GMT

In <1992Sep3.204116.10797@pony.Ingres.COM> dan@Ingres.COM (Daniel J. Dick) writes:

>chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) writes:
>: . . .
>: This is especially clear in the abortion debate. It appears to me
>: that most of the people involved want to ban abortion for one of
>: two reasons: Because such a ban would compel everyone to conform
>: to their narrowly-defined views on sexuality, or because they can't
>: personally imagine a situation where they would want an abortion, 
>: so they assume that no one else really wants one either.
>: 
>: (There is also a small minority who make the argument that fetuses
>: have rights. I don't have any complaint with this, as long as they
>: understand that this argument either prohibits rape-and-incest 
>: exceptions, or denies the "Right to Equal Protection Under Law".)
>: 
>: So, which side are you on, man?
>: 

>Much of what you said earler was good and interesting.  But, what you wrote
>above would cause me to ask if you have considered what you have said whether
>or not it is true.  I find that nearly everyone who is pro-life is pro-life
>because they value the life and rights of the unborn.  They may wish for
>people to conform to traditional values regarding sexuality, and they may not
>be able to imagine a situation where they would want an abortion, but to say
>that this is the cause of their pro-life stance just does not seem right.

Certainly, some pro-lifers sincerely believe that fetuses have rights. 
From reading your other postings, I have no doubts that you are one
of them. 

But, I have never heard a plausible argument that explains why 
fetuses conceived as a result of birth control failure have an
absolute right-to-life, but fetuses conceived as a result of rape
have no rights whatsoever. So, I think that the majority of
pro-lifers, who support rape-and-incest exceptions, don't really
believe in fetal rights.

But this isn't really relevant anyway. I posted this argument in
a debate with John Stevens, who seems to believe that abortion is
OK as long as the man involved can veto it. To debate abortion
with you, I'd make a completely different argument: Why should rights
be granted at the moment of conception? The difference between a
fertilized egg and an unfertilized egg seems very small, compared
to the difference between a viable fetus and a non-viable one, or
between a fetus and an infant. Why is your suggested boundary better
than the other two?

>On a slightly different topic, have any of you seen the Nightline interview
>of Bailey who is running for Congress on a pro-life platform?  Apparently
>he has taken hold of the law prohibiting the television censorship of
>campaign ads and has used it to bring to the people in full color a clear
>view of the products of abortion.  A living, smiling baby was shown first
>followed by a shrivled up late-term aborted baby, slightly brown and slightly
>pale slumped over in a corner.  Tiny, bloody hands and feet were shown.
>Someone--perhaps a physician--using white plastic tweezers reassembled a
>small child on an off-white board--a leg here, an arm there, half a head
>with an eye still in place over on the upper right, etc.

My thoughts, in no particular order:
1) Censorship is evil.
2) It would be more honest to show footage of first-trimester abortions.
   When late-term abortions are done, chances are that there's either
   severe fetal deformity, or the mother's health is at risk.
3) I wouldn't want to watch somebody performing abortions or open-heart
   surgery, but I wouldn't want to make either of them illegal.
4) Maybe pro-choice groups could show graphic pictures of women who died 
   in illegal back-alley abortions? But I hope they don't, because I
   think commercials like this alienate the viewer, and wind up doing
   more harm than good. I could be wrong.
5) I hardly ever watch television, so I'll probably never see the
   commercials in question. 
-- 

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
===========================================================
Newsgroups: talk.abortion