joelg@fluke.UUCP (05/15/84)
In an earlier posting, Vince M. offered a number of postulates which he feels weigh against legalized abortion. Consider this a rebuttal. By way of introduction, I am a lawyer, and I take a legal theorist's view of questions regarding the individual's place in the grand scheme of things (as opposed to a theologian's view). My reason for doing so is that we live in a society controlled by the rule of law, not of the church, the idea being to get away from any one sect's idea of morality in order to create a more open democracy. While one can argue that we are anything but a democracy, I submit we're a lot closer to it than we would be if questions such as abortion were answered solely on theological grounds. My area of concern centers on these two statements from Vince's posting: > 3. The human has a right to live, although this may be abrogated > under just cause. Usually the case after a human has done something > under freewill. > > 4. The fetus....is worthy of the protection of the state which protects > ALL humans. I extract the following premises as essential to the above propositions: a) The human has a right to live. b) Society has a right to abrogate the human's right to live c) Society's right to abrogate a life is conditioned upon the individual's moral dereliction. d) The state protects all life. e) The fetus is worthy of state protection. There may be others I've missed, but these are the ones I feel a need to respond to. For starters, I would like to know of some authority for any of those propositions. There are too many contradictions here. If a) is true, then b) cannot be true, regardless of c). To put it another way, if the human has a right to live, then society has no right to end a life, no matter how much evil the individual practices under "freewill". One should be very careful when speaking of "rights", Vince, for on this planet, there are no guarantees. For example, what right to life does the state protect when we pay for killing Sandinistas? What moral wrong have those people committed? What rights did the state protect when we killed a couple million Vietnamese and 45,000 of our own people? The state does not protect all life, as you suggest. The world would be a happier place, I suppose, if the state did protect all life, but such is not the case, and never has been. Your premises may be prescriptive (what should be true) but they are by no means descriptive (what is true). Perhaps your religious faith provides all the authority you need for these premises. Ok, fine. However, we are not in the habit of making laws on the basis of religious faith. Read the first amendment. Aside from the moral questions involved in abortion, the fact remains that it is a legal question. As such it should be (in fact has been) resolved on the basis of legal considerations: customs, precedents, and so on. If you would like some more info on the legal approach, sit down in a quiet place and READ the supreme court's decision in Roe v. Wade. Did you know, for example, that abortion was not always illegal in most states? The Texas anti-abortion statute which triggered Roe v. Wade was passed after the turn of the century. Prior to that time, abortion during the first trimester (before "quickening", as it was called) was quite legal and fairly common in Texas, however immoral some considered it. Laws are value judgements. When we laid waste to most of Southeast Asia, that was a value judgement. It was not a function of anyone's freewill save our own and Henry Kissinger's. When the CIA funds a raid on oil storage tanks in Nicaragua, or plants mines, these are value judgements; this is Ronald Reagan's freewill, not that of the Sandinistas. Morality or theology really don't enter into it. When the Supreme Court rules that abortion is a private matter, not subject to state interference, that, too, is a value judgement. Law is the governing mechanism for a society, and exists solely because we recognized long ago that a society, made up of a multitude of individuals, each with its own set of values, needs, motives and beliefs, would not survive if all of those conflicting values were not somehow restrained. So we make value judgements to sort out those acts of individual volition we can live with, and those we cannot. Law is not and never has been a statement of morality. Your morals are your problem; law is simply a conflict-resolution mechanism to be invoked when your morals and mine conflict. So the solution, obviously, is to ammend the constitution so that, notwithstanding the first amendment or anything else, abortion is illegal. Ok, give it your best shot, but I won't support you. Your five premises, stated above, seem rooted in your faith more than anything, and certainly not in reality. For my own part, I take a dim view of government doing anything more than is necesary to keep the lid on the kettle. The rights of the unborn don't concern me nearly as much as the rights of the poor schmucks who are already here and trying to make a go of it. If your only desire is to preach against evil, I don't see a bright future for you. Our society has rarely embraced a cause just because some folks think it to be the epitome of morality. If you REALLY want to prevent abortions, why not agitate for laws designed to encourage a healthy, nurturing home environment for every child that is born, such as daycare for working mothers, and nationalized health insurance, and low-cost counselling for families with problems such as child abuse or just poor communication? Or maybe work toward a future without nuclear weapons so that people might once again see some reason to procreate? Seek the abolition of the death penalty, while you're at it, and maybe life in general won't be seen as such an expendable commodity. But look around. Is life sacred on this planet? Of course not. Do you favor gun control? Anyone who says life is sacred is a liar if they're also against gun control. Do you see the problem here? The question of when life begins is a value judgement. If our social institutions held the sacred view of life that you do, then maybe we'd be more willing to agree with your opinion that life begins at conception and is sacred. We might even be willing to ignore some of the other issues, like the right of a woman to decide whether or not she will be a baby-machine. But as long as life is treated so cheaply, I don't think I want to abrogate other people's right to a satisfactory life in favor of your absolute notion that a fetus is sacred, even though convicts, Vietnamese and Sandinistas are not.
kenn@sdccsu3.UUCP (05/21/84)
[This line is merely an image of your figmentation] From: ..fluke!joelg (Joel Gilman) WOW!! I like your arguements, Mr. Gilman! Pure logic is something very refreshing to run into. Also, you've tabbed all your statements so it's very easy to insert those ol' brokets. I liked most of what you said, but I think you missed an option here: > So the solution, obviously, is to ammend the constitution so that, > notwithstanding the first amendment or anything else, abortion is > illegal. Why?? Why can't the opposite be just as true, the default solution making it legal for everyone and those who don't like it, don't have to use it? We don't have to eliminate all sugar because of some existing diabetics. Unlike marijuana, guns, or drunken driving, abortion doesn't concern innocent bystanders. If you're not involved, you can't get hurt. If some jane off the street decides she wants an abortion, it won't affect me. With drunken driving, murder, and drug pushing, I can be totally minding my own business and still get pulled into one of their effects on the world. Except for the most bizarre circumstances, people can forever rid or involve their personal worlds with abortion as they choose. I don't see why we cannot make that do/don't-use choice for ourselves. Kenn the Kenf ...!sdcsvax!kenn ...!sdcsvax!sdccs6!ix192 ...!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!kenn