bstempleton@watmath.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (07/03/83)
I don't know if we want to go into this again, but I get tired of people thinking of abortion as a single issue. It is three distinct, and almost indepependant issues. The first one "Pro Life vs. Anti-Life" is really a non-issue. Just about everybody will say they are "pro life". Of course, just about everybody isn't purely pro-life since they (if they are still alive) believe it's ok to kill lower forms of life for food. Thus they draw a line somewhere. Then there is the pro/anti choice issue. That's the real issue if you want to talk about "Should abortion be legal?" In my opinion, no matter what the opinions are on the third issue I will list, the fact that there are large bodies of people for either side indicate that this is not the sort of thing you put into law. The issue is 100% a religious one (because it revolves on the "is human life sacred" question) based on intangibles and thus shouldn't be in law. The final issue is pro/anti abortion. This is the real issue if you want to talk about "Is abortion right?" If you want to talk morals, fine, but don't confuse them with law. Although most people will claim they are pro-life, the other two issues are somewhat independant. For example, you can be pro choice and pro abortion, in which case you think that abortions are ok and people should have the right of choice in religious issues. Likewise you can think that people should have the choice, but that abortion is wrong and not for you. Further we have a fairly small group of people who don't believe in rights but think abortion is ok. Finally there are those who think that abortion is bad and should be illegal. While two of these camps are large the pro-choice/anti-abortion camp is fair sized as well, but just not that vocal on the issue. This should show people that there are several issues here. As to the morals debate? We've taken this dead horse and draw, quartered, hung, burned and flogged it into its component atoms. Nobody gets convinced by this and almost everybody has heard the arguments. Let's not get into it again. -- Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ont. (519) 886-7304
chris@grkermit.UUCP (Chris Hibbert) (07/07/83)
You forgot to mention the most commonly excluded issue: If abortion is to be allowed, do we have to assume that even those who find it abhorrent must pay for (through medicare and medicaid) abortions for women who want them? For the moment I'd like to leave out the issue of life-threatening pregnancies which seem to properly (insofar as anything in medicare and medicaid are proper) fall in the province of a medical welfare (it's not insurance) scheme. Almost all of the "pro-choice" people offend me by claiming that there is a "right to have an abortion" which includes someone else paying for it. If there is any such right, it, like the right to own property only means the right to get it in a way that doesn't infringe other's rights. There are lots of organizations (like Planned Parenthood) that are willing to provide inexpensive abortions to those who can't afford a few days in a hospital. decvax!genrad!grkermit!chris allegra!linus!genrad!grkermit!chris harpo!eagle!mit-vax!grkermit!chris
rung@ihuxw.UUCP (07/08/83)
Agreed! What a woman does to her own body and whatever (life or pseudo-life, depending on your point of view) is inside of her is her own business. My only gripe is not to do it with my tax or charity dollars! Which brings up a point. All you "Pro-Lifers" out in net land may not be aware of Planned Parenthoods not just once-in-a-while financial support of abortions to those that "can't" afford one. What a back door for a "PLANNING" organization. What you may also not be aware of is that Planned Parenthood has strong financial support from the United Way and Crusade of Mercy. think about that next time you're asked to give your "fair share." Pete Rung BTL Naperville, Ill. #