home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion
- Path: sparky!uunet!wri!joplin.wri.com!markp
- From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
- Subject: Re: The issue is abortion, not choice
- Message-ID: <markp.728239985@joplin.wri.com>
- Sender: news@wri.com
- Nntp-Posting-Host: joplin.wri.com
- Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
- References: <1993Jan26.002031.13994@ncsu.edu> <C1FxF5.L4I@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <adams.728070069@spssig>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:53:05 GMT
- Lines: 69
-
- In <adams.728070069@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
-
- >cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
-
- >>For those who are personally opposed to abortion, but don't want to force their
- >>opinions on anyone, and are thus "pro-choice", could you please explain why you
- >>are against abortion, if not for the reason that it causes the death of an
- >>unborn child, and if it causes the death of an innocent human, why do you act
- >>in favor of allowing that to continue?
-
- >Basically, my objections to abortion are based soley on my religious point
- >of view. Given that I've formed this view soley on religion, I don't feel
- >that I can impose it on other people who do not accept the same set of
- >religiouns 'truths' that I do.
-
- >As a member of a society which was founded on the concepts of basic
- >liberty, I believe that each person is entitled to do what they think best
- >so long as it does not interfere with another person's rights.
-
- Ah-hah!
-
- >When it
- >does, the government (legal system) is the usual arbitrator, though there are
- >other methods of arbitration.
-
- >In any event, our laws protect the rights of citizens and aliens living
- >here. Clearly, all born persons have a demonstrable set of rights that
- >are protected. Prior to viability, there is, as far as I can tell, little
- >that would give a fetus liberty interests that outweighed the woman's.
- >After viability, there are more questions, and the conflicts in liberty
- >ineterests need to be resolved.
-
- What's viability got to do with it? People requiring dialysis aren't
- "viable."
-
- >I come down on the side of the woman to exercise her choice prior to
- >viability, and believe that post-viability abortions should only be
- >performed to save the life of the mother. This is how I'd like to
- >see the law handle the sitution - no restrictions prior to viabilty, and
- >heavy restrictions after (ie only to save the life of the mother).
-
- >But, if the choice is between no abortions and late-term abortions, I'll
- >take the option of making abortions available.
-
- >I've always said that law will never, ever stop abortions, no more than
- >prohibition stopped drining, or the War on Drugs(tm) drug use. I prefer
- >education (sex & birth control), adoption, counselling, availability of
- >birth control, etc, etc. All of these combined will reducde the number of
- >abortions
-
- But not "stop" them -- nor (maybe) reduce them as much as pro-life laws.
-
- >...and isn't that what the pro-life goal should be?
-
- >What I'm trying to say is that 'pro-life' people are fighting the wrong
- >way. Making abortion illegal just won't work. You need to fight the cause
- >(poverty, lack of knowledge, cost, etc, etc). Until you adress the basic
- >causes, you'll be fighting a losing battle.
-
- One might argue the same about infanticide.
-
- > -Steve
- >--
- > The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
- > -------------------
- > adams@spss.com Phone: (312) 329-3522
- > Steve Adams "Space-age cybernomad" Fax: (312) 329-3558
-
- Mark Pundurs
-