pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (07/19/84)
Round two: } from Yosi Hoshen: }I don't think that these examples are symmetrical. The pro-choicers Y}do not require that pro-lifers should go an abortion. They are S}only concerned with a woman's right over her body. On the }other hand, the pro-lifers are trying to coerce others to conform to }their religious and/or moral codes. P>The example only seems unsymmetrical if you assume there is no third party M>here. Pro-lifers are against abortion for the same reason most people D>are against parents killing their born children. Y*The above response exemplifies the attempts of some religionists to impose S*their definition for when-life-begins on others who do not subscribe *to this definition. Where's the religion in it Yosi? How would you explain an atheist's attempt to do the same? How do you account for people like Dr. Bernard Nathanson who co-founded NARAL, and once operated the largest abortion clinic in the world? Have you read his book "Aborting America"? Finding when human life begins is mainly a matter of logic and scientific evidence. It's not a matter of subscribing to one thing or another. (As if the choice was only a matter of personal taste.) Does "pro-choice" mean anyone can choose their own definition of what constitutes human life? A couple of weeks ago I recomended two books in net.abortion: "RITES OF LIFE: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth" by Dr. Landrum Shettles and David Rorvik "THE UNABORTED SOCRATES" by Peter Kreeft. There are no religious arguments in these books and the case for proscribing elective abortion does not rest on religious grounds. Y}When a pro-choice woman favors an H}abortion she favors her abortion. Whereas, when a pro-lifer opposes }an abortion, he/she opposes another person abortion. P>Who's abortion does a pro-choice man favor? Pro-choice groups tend M>to favor tax money being spent on abortion for the poor (certain minority D>groups have large numbers in that category) and as an answer to the >overcrowding in third world countries. *Paul is misinterpreting the pro-choice position. The pro-choice Y*position does not call for an abortion as a method of birth control. H*It calls for the right of every women to make a personal choice *on abortion. A choice that does not have to depend on *the wealth or the origin of the woman. (I agree with Paul that *we do not have right to force abortion on third world women. *However, I am not familiar with any group promoting such an approach.) I just don't believe that Yosi. (Ref. "Apostle of Abortion", Science 82 March 1982, p. 70). Abortion is actively promoted *as birth control* in the third world by groups like the International Fertility Research Program and the International Planned Parenthood Federation. The article is about a scientist named Malcom Potts, Ex. Director of the former organization. His "apostleship" involves the establishment of birth control programs in the Third World. One of the article's excerpts reads, "Potts sees little hope for population control unless safe, legal abortion is included in family planning programs". The article is very favorable toward the work Potts is doing and is filled with the standard justification of abortion found in pro-choice rhetoric. Pott's colleagues admiringly describe him as "a Lawrence of Arabia. He comes charging out of the desert waving a bottle of abortifacient." and, " He's the man who has the courage to say in public all the things we say in private. He's the nagging conscience of our field, the man who says 'Full speed ahead and damn the consequences'". Indeed. Y}If the pro-choicers H}would demand that every woman is required to have an abortion then }Paul's [DuBois] examples would have a valid point. P>But then they wouldn't be "pro-choicers", would they? It seems that, by M>definition, you can't oppose anything a "pro-choicer" does. D Y*You hit it on the nail. The pro-lifers' position is indefensible, because H*it advocates the imposition of one group moral/religious code on others. It seems then that those fundementalists who beat their kids with baseball bats are pro-choicers too. They aren't asking you to beat your kids, they just want to be able to do it to their own. Maybe they think that the kids aren't fully human until they can swing a bat in their own defense. Would you impose a different definition on them? As Paul Torek and Y.S. Martillo have pointed out before, the argument against imposing morality is specious and filled with hypocrisy. It's not a matter of whether or not to impose morality (morality is always with us, lest we become animals) but what is the right (or good) moral to impose. *If pro-lifers would use the moral appeal approach rather than attempting Y*to coerce their will through legislation, I don't think anyone would H*complain. Trying to convince people rather than coercing them is more *likely to reduce the number of abortions. Who convinced the population of the "right to abort" when the Supreme Court repealed all state laws against abortion with the Roe vs Wade decision? The pro-life argument has been very convincing to those who have had the opportunity and willingness to listen (that means going beyond what you get in the news media). And what a job of convincing there is to do. I think there are a lot of people out there who desparately want to believe that abortion is morally right. If they are ever convinced to the contrary, how would they handle the guilt? (The best way I know is through the Gospel. But we're always trying to keep religion out of this aren't we?) Well it's time to turn this over to Rich Rosen for his customary "last word" on everything :-). This discussion belongs in net.abortion anyway. -- Paul Dubuc {cbosgd, ihnp4} !cbscc!pmd The true light that enlightens every one was coming into the world... (John 1:9)
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (07/21/84)
Abortion is a bad example to use when attacking attempts to impose private moralities on others, simply because the central issue -- whether or not a fetus is a person -- can be argued either way with or without regard to religion. I'd rather focus on things like censorship, liquor laws, Sunday closing laws, etc.