NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/rushlim/12105

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 6.8 KB

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12105 talk.abortion:52614
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!csn!cherokee!steven
From: [e-mail] ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Keywords: abortion, religion
Sender: [e-mail] (Radio Free Boulder)
Nntp-Posting-Host: jaynes.advtech.uswest.com
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:34:43 GMT
Lines: 161

> = (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>> = (Steve Novak) writes:

[...]
>>And yes, a law based purely on christianity has no business being made
>>into law.  That would make our country a theocracy.

>I agree.  But abortion pro or con is not based purely on Christianity.

"Purely", like 100%, of course not.  But my opinion is the vast majority of
pro-lifers base their views indeed on imagined "christian" ideals (it sure
isn't in the bible), and a large chunk of that majority are additionally
rabid religious extemists.

>>Forgach would love that, but most people wouldn't.

>If "Forgach" is supposed to be me*, then you are wrong.

No way do I think you're Suzanne.  Sorry if it appeared that way.

>I think the
>question of abortion should be decided by the vote, state by state.

I don't.  It's a right all American women should have, and state by state
approval would simply make life horrible for (esp. poor) women needing abortion
that have to travel to another state.  To me it's a basic right.  Should we have
let the Bill of Rights be in force in only the states ratifying them?  It
wasn't unanimous.

>* Have you confused me with Suzanne Forgach?

The only thing I'd confuse with Forgach is a rabid pit bull chewing on
a rosary.

>I haven't see her express such sympathies, but I could have missed it.

I started reading t.a. about 4 years ago or so; Suzanne was already here.

She used to be the t.a. evangelist, and said many stupid things including a
desire to see the U.S. changed to a theocracy.  Having gotten the net.crap
beat out of her concerning religion and abortion, she pretends these days
that there is no religious motivation behind her anti-abortionism.

She lies, of course, but what else is new?

>>>Those who favor legal abortion often say, we don't know when human life
>>>starts or science can't tell us when human life begins.  This statement
>>>can only be made based on (at least) a quasi-religious belief in some
>>>extra-biological aspect in what constitutes human life.

>>No.  There is no quasi-religious belief involved, though I'll bet you'd
>>like it to.

>What do you mean?

I've heard too many pro-lifers in recent years trying to turn the tables on
pro-choicers by accusing them of "religious" atheism, or as in your paragraph
above, a "quasi-religious belief in...what constitutes human life".  This is
wrong.  I simply say that the woman and her bodily autonomy should always
hold sway over any fetal "rights".

>>That statement is saying in essence, "There is no way that YOU can
>>prove that YOUR opinion that a fetus is human life worth protecting at
>>the expense of an alive, breathing human being's bodily autonomy. Since
>>you have no such proof, then kindly practice your own beliefs and leave
>>the rest of us alone."

>This is the same as saying:
>
>    A) The fetus is not a person* and therefore the mother
>       is free to do as she chooses.
>
>or
>
>    B) The status of the fetus doesn't matter, because the
>       rights of the mother take precedence.  Even if the
>       fetus is a person, abortion is ok.**
>
>Which is it?  You seem to want both positions depending on which is more
>convenient.  If I proved position B to be without merit (somehow), my
>guess is that you would be undaunted and take position A.

My opinion is that no one can, or will, prove the personhood of a fetus.  So,
whatEVER the outcome of that argument, it matters not in my opinion of a
woman's right to choose an abortion.

So, I am of the "B" position...rights of the woman take precedence.

>* defined here as a human life worth protecting.

Still, not at the expense of the woman.

[...]
>I meant "a human life", i.e. a person.  I'm not missing the pro-choice
>point at all.  I simply don't agree with it.

This is a great country for disagreement.

>>Of course, the sperm or the egg is human life, too.  And, the main question
>>we're confronting here is a woman's right to an abortion, which doesn't
>>depend on if a fetus is human life; just if the woman's rights are
>>paramount.

>Here you seem to be arguing for B.

Indeed I am.

>I see this position as simply a dodge, a confusion of the issues.

Then we agree to disagree.

>If we say the unborn child is a person, it may
>be correct to say that he has no right to infringe on the mother, but that
>certainly doesn't give her the right to kill him, i.e. no claimed non-vital
>right can have parity or greater claim than the right of a person (in this
>case a fetus) to life.

I don't agree.  Forcing a woman to give birth is slavery.  The usually
non-thinking, non-feeling fetus certainly doesn't know or care that it's
being terminated.  *I* feel that pro-lifers simply choose to get mushy and
emotionalistic over potential human life, and I further think it's dishonest.

>You can't simply kill a guest who has overstayed his welcome.

You can simply kill an unwanted parasite.  That sounds crude, but it's still
true.

>If you say the mother can kill the unborn child, and yet the
>unborn child is a person, you are in effect saying that the unborn child is
>a class of person different from all other innocent persons in that he has
>no right to life.

Exactly.  It IS a "person" different from all others; it lives inside a
woman's body.

>For the purpose of honest debate on abortion, this is
>no different from saying that the unborn child is not a person.

Fine.  Interpret it however you please.  I know my stance to be, no forced
birth.  No slavery of women.  No mostly religious viewpoint made into U.S.
law.

>If the fetus is not a person, then abortion needs no further justification,
>and there is no need to compare the rights of the mother with those of the
>fetus because clearly he doesn't have any.  However, if you say that the
>unborn child is not a person, then you are using something other than
>biology to define personhood, and hence my "a quasi-religious belief in
>some extra-biological aspect in what constitutes human life [personhood]"
>comment above.

This as clear as I can be: I have *no opinion* on the personhood of a fetus.
This is not quasi-religious; it's simply my view, and it's as scientifically
sound as your counter opinion.



--
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
[e-mail]