jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (01/22/85)
It is about time we do something! It is apparent that the anti-abortionists have significantly increased their activities in recent months. Their propaganda campaign is on the rise and so is their effort to intimidate women who choose abortion. They are likely to intensify their efforts at the judicial and legislative level. It is quiet clear that if those of us who oppose the attempts to control women's bodies by big government do not act, women will once again become second class citizens. Remember, slaves cannot control their bodies! The anti-abortionists are trying to impose their moral and religious code on those who subscribe to a different moral stance. Making abortion illegal could be the first step in losing our personal freedom. Remember, these folks have a lot more "moral virtues" ready to shove down our throats. Those of us who support women's right to choose should be more active in counteracting the anti-abortionist propaganda, intimidation, and legislative efforts. The anti-abortionists seem to be dedicated and fanatic in their cause, but so is Khomeini and his gang. (Khomeini also knows what good for everyone. He is absolutely convinced that he is right, and, therefore he is very dedicated for his cause). I am convinced that it is possible to fight fanaticism. If we don't, it is our freedom that is threatened, not the anti-abortionists'. Does anyone have any suggestions? -- Yosi Hoshen, Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, (312)-979-7321, Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho
mag@whuxlm.UUCP (Gray Michael A) (01/24/85)
> > It is about time we do something! > > It is apparent that the anti-abortionists have significantly increased > their activities in recent months. Their propaganda campaign is on [ . . . ] > we don't, it is our freedom that is threatened, not the anti-abortionists'. > > Does anyone have any suggestions? > -- > > Yosi Hoshen, Bell Laboratories > Naperville, Illinois, (312)-979-7321, Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho I have one observation: I attended a meeting at the Labs last year sponsored by New Jersey NOW at which the president of that organization was present. She stated that the official NJNOW position was to support Roe v. Wade, and that the organization wanted nothing more. I made some remarks about drawing arbitrary lines and observed that the pro-choice side seemed to be weakened if they tried to defend that stance, since my feeling was that the issue is not about human life, it's about women's control of their bodies, and that Roe v. Wade really fails to address that issue. What I discovered was that she and several other leaders present at the meeting have almost no ideology. Time and again, they reiterated a position that boiled down to "We like Roe v. Wade, we want no more and no less, and we wish to preserve it." I suggested to them that the other side had (what they believe to be) coherent ideologies, that these were simple to attack, but that attack was necessary: if they aren't refuted publicly, the pro-choice side will lose support. Despite the strong stances and polarization in this newsgroup, I run across people ALL THE TIME who have NOT made up their minds about abortion and who want to hear ethical and moral arguments. Pro-choicers are putting out their desires without a supporting ideology. My suggestions: Roe v. Wade was a good first step, and has incalculably improved the freedom of women in our society. It should be emphasized that it is only a first step. To use a military analogy, armies advance or retreat, they don't stand still. Let's advance rather than trying to defend an untenable position. (Anti-abortionists who are reading this, please spare me the flames about what Roe v. Wade has done for the freedom of certain fetuses. I've heard it all.) Start putting out reasoned moral argument and refutations of anti-abortionist positions instead of wasting time arguing with anti-abortionists. Their position is well-solidified. It is usually religious in nature, meaning that it is based on faith. You can't argue with faith. I have read several excellent papers on abortion ethics. If there is interest on the net, send me mail and I'll ask the author to post them. Mike Gray, BTL, WH
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (01/24/85)
> Does anyone have any suggestions?
I do. I share your concern, BUT - *please*, everyone who follows up,
*delete* net.women from the newsgroup list. Net.abortion was created
specifically to get abortion discussions off of net.women (and perhaps
net.politics too), not because of any conspiracies, but because to a
large number of people, they seemed to generate for more heat than light.
Yes, it's a political issue, yes, it's a women's issue - yes, discuss it
on net.abortion.
Thank you.
Jeff Winslowmgv@duke.UUCP (Marco G. Valtorta) (01/27/85)
I disagree with the statement that abortion is a "woman's right." The right to life is just as much a woman's right as a man's right. Also, shouldn't notes about abortion be left out of net.women, and kept in net.abortion? Marco Valtorta
mag@whuxlm.UUCP (Gray Michael A) (01/30/85)
From: Michael Gray, AT&T Bell Labs, Whippany, N.J.
I have received several letters asking me to post the articles
on abortion ethics that I mentioned in my reply to Yosi Hoshen's
request for ideas on promoting choice.
The author, Joel V. Sanders, has given me an article to post
as a starting point. His comments and article follow:
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the Wall Street Journal of 1/17/83, on the occasion of the
10th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Terry Eastland, editor of the
Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, wrote a guest editorial decrying the
the decision.
In general, Eastland criticizes the decision on constitutional
grounds (which I consider irrelevant to abortion ethics), but his
basic anti-abortion stance can be shown by a short quote from
the article:
"Our system of law depends on respect for individual life,
a value rooted in the Judeo-Christian ethic. The court's
decision in Roe v. Wade cannot easily be reconciled with
that value. Indeed, it points the way toward future in
which respect for human life becomes, like beauty, merely
relative."
I wrote a letter-to-the-editor in response:
re: 10 YEARS AFTER THE ABORTION DECISION (Eastland)
I agree that a principled, defensible position on abortion can-
not be drawn from the Constitution. Many ethical questions about
abortion have yet to even be explored, and law cannot lead
philosophy. However, despite the uncertain legal propriety of
the Supreme Court's decision, many beneficent consequences
have surely accrued from it. Among these are: its implicit
acknowledgement of the full human capacities of women, who have
been severely demeaned throughout the Western world since the
onset of Christianity; a much greater confidence that one can
experience the life plan that one values, integrating parenting
activities into it, if and when one chooses; a significantly
reduced mortality among women who elect to have an abortion;
and a higher likelihood that children will indeed be genuinely
valued and well-treated by their parents.
Moreover, from my own analysis, I believe that a formidable set
of ethical considerations can be brought against the anti-abortion
position. A sampling of this set follows:
- Argument from religious dogma reduces to arbitrary
assertion and should be rejected as nonpersuasive.
- Similarly, but less obviously, argument from natural
"rights" appears to be arbitrary assertion. If a
meaningful definition of the concept of a natural
"right" has been formulated, then it has escaped
the scrutiny of this writer. All the theories from
classical liberalism and libertarianism that I have
examined depend ultimately upon social agreement.
If political "rights" have no "natural" basis, then
the very term "right" is both unnecessary and ob-
fuscating, and a species of "permission" or of
"consent" would offer more clarity. Consequently,
an a priori claim of a "right" to something (such
as life, a job, a meal, or a swimming pool) appears
to be meaningless.
- The fact that life is present at conception is
unarguable; it is demonstrable from the biological
characteristics of life. This fact, however, is
ethically indeterminate: it does not say how a
given organism should be regarded.
- Vegetative life, which is the form present early
in an embryo's existence, is routinely terminated
for convenient purposes (e.g. harvesting food,
producing lumber, killing weeds). Perceptual or
animal life, which a fetus possesses following the
development of sense receptors and a nervous system,
is also routinely terminated (e.g. slaughtering
beef, producing fur coats, killing pests). Conceptual
life, which is only known to occur in the human
species, begins to develop in early childhood.
Conceptual awareness denotes the capacity for ab-
stract thought, and it is the essential, defining
characteristic of "human"-ness (it is useful to
distinguish between two senses of "human"--one
denotes an attribute, another denotes a species).
The killing of human life is sanctioned, in some
form, by the social mores of every culture known
to this writer. Examples include war, civil
disobedience, self-defense, genocide, espionage,
and euthanasia. Thus, precedents widely exist
for extinguishing life, up to and including life
at the human level.
It is the task of a rational abortion ethic to identify the
conditions under which the capacity of a living embryo to
eventuate in a human child should be actualized. The ethical
considerations above, though far from exhaustive, generally
discredit the anti-abortion position (they also suggest that
the popular abortion debate has not yet evolved even to the
point of asking relevant questions). Coupled with the substantial
benefits that follow from the loosening of abortion restrictions,
they point to future guidelines which are at least as liberal
as those adopted by the Supreme Court.
[Signature]
------------------
My reply to Eastland was deliberately brief, to maximize the chance
that the Wall Street Journal would publish it (they didn't). Con-
sequently, many of the ideas in it are only mentioned and not
developed. It should also be apparent that the arguments presented
are in fact only a starting point--they attempt to push through some
common ideological shortfalls, to help focus the ethical issues, and
thereby to clear the way for some new thinking. They do not yet
posit a rational ethic. If there is sufficient interest, I will
elaborate on the points named or carry the arguments forward.
I am in the process of getting an account on a machine with net access.
For the moment, please send any comments to the holder of this account,
and he will forward them to me. I will post my own net address when
it becomes available.
Joel V. Sanders,
AT&T Bell Labs,
Whippany, N.J.bmt@we53.UUCP ( B. M. Thomas ) (01/31/85)
>........... However, despite the uncertain legal propriety of >the Supreme Court's decision, many beneficent consequences >have surely accrued from it. Among these are: its implicit >acknowledgement of the full human capacities of women, who have >been severely demeaned throughout the Western world since the >onset of Christianity; a much greater confidence that one can >experience the life plan that one values, integrating parenting >activities into it, if and when one chooses; a significantly >reduced mortality among women who elect to have an abortion; >and a higher likelihood that children will indeed be genuinely >valued and well-treated by their parents. Twelve years since the great decision, surely there must be some support for this sort of wishful thinking. Well, tell us then... Where is it? Tell us about the women who are now so free and easy, really liberated, finding themselves. Full human capacities. Confidence. Demeaned since the onset of Christianity. Where did you study history? Tell us about it, okay? If you believe it, prove it. Otherwise, what you have is unsubstantiated hogwash. Religious, dogmatic unsubstantiated hogwash. Your religion of do-your-own-thing dictates that it should be so, so it's so. In spite of the evidence. You religious people make me sick. I will not apologise for breathing. we53!bmt(Brian M. Thomas @ AT&T Technologies, St. Louis, MO)
asz@snow.UUCP (Jerry Cornelius) (01/31/85)
Surely any law that imposes anything on anyone is making them a slave. -- "Anarchy is the only sensible alternative; don't vote, you know it makes sense" ... mcvax!ukc!qtlon!flame!ubu!snow!asz
tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (02/01/85)
If argument from natural rights is an "arbitrary assertion", how can you
claim *anything* about abortion, one way or the other? After all, all of
the arguments about abortion revolve around the conflict between a woman's
right to liberty and a fetus' right to life. If neither the woman or the
fetus has any rights, you shouldn't care which way the issue is settled.
I suppose you would also say that slavery in the South was OK, since white
society had decided that blacks didn't have a right to liberty. And Hitler
couldn't have been doing anything wrong when he caused the massacre of Jews,
because under your system they didn't have any right to expect to live.
I think that Jefferson was right when he wrote that people "have certain
inalienable rights, that among these are the rights to life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness." Just because many governments don't recognize
them doesn't mean that they don't exist.
If you want to live under a system that recognizes few (if any) rights, you
can take your pick from a number of left-wing and right-wing dictatorships.
However, the "meaningless" natural rights upon which our system is based do
work pretty well in practice.
-- Thomas Newton
Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA