jj@rabbit.UUCP (03/05/84)
(muncha muncha muncha Take this, O great eater of first lines!)
I've been reading the abortion debates on the net for at least
four go-arounds in net.{politics,women,general,flame,philosophy}.
The main issues seem to be:
1) Is abortion {good,moral,murder,bad,whatever}.
This is mostly argued on religious grounds,
where the "pro-life" folks take whatever cutoff the
"pro-choice" folks propose and damn it for murder.
In these arguments, all possible definations have
been rejected. I include birth, conception, brain function,
self-sufficient metabolism, and others in this catagory.
This part of the discussion seems to me to be deliberately
over-emotionalized by the "pro-life" individuals, who
insist on calling abortion, or in some cases even
birth control, murder. This emotional argument has,
in the past, been linked to genocide, involuntary
euthanasia, and other subjects deemed undesirable,
for the sole purpose (or so I understand) of
creating an emotional link between abortion and
murder/genocide/euthanasia.
This emotional rhetoric has been recognized
by informed and realistic individuals of all sides
to be an effective way of swaying the uncommitted
and unenlightened, while allowing the same to avoid
thinking about what they've decided. The "pro-choice"
forces, of course, insist on describing graphically
(and emotionally) the results of unwanted pregnancies.
2) Does abortion cause/represent the decline of moral
fibre in "America?"
Again, the "pro-life" individuals argue that
abortion (and pre-conception birth controls as well)
have/will cause the complete decline of our
youth/country/world/town/city/what-have-you.
The "availibility" of "free sex" is cited
as an indication of a declining culture, and abstinence
except between properly (in the religious sense) joined
couples is encouraged as the "right way" to control
birth. <If abortion is murder, say the "pro-choice"
people, then so is abstinence.>
The reasoning between the decline of
western civilization and "free sex" is never
discussed, except in a religious manner. The fact
that religious matters only carry weight to others
of the same (or related) religions (presumably they DO carry
that weight, although some dissention is clear) is never
mentioned by the "pro-life" folks. The "pro-choice"
folks, on the other hand, clearly understand this,
but usually refrain from stating this principle
in a clear, unambiguous fashion.
Thus, as in #1, the undecided and uninformed
are swayed, one way or another, again withough having
to think.
3) Abortion causes/relieves human misery.
In this line of thought, the "pro-life"
people claim (usually on religious grounds, although
sometimes on secular ones) that the "very attitudes
that make abortion acceptable are the ones that are
also responsible for human misery", and the "pro-choice"
people argue that the availability of abortion
<I'm sorry, I don't have a relevant quote handy>
significantly lessens human misery, both for the
born and not-to-be-born. Stasticics regarding unwanted
children, hunger, starvation, crime, drug addiction,
and the like are bandied about, with each group arguing
that the principles of the other are the cause.
This argument, while of great importance, is less
emotionally charged (for most people), and is usually lost
in the crossfire.
It should be clear from the above that supposedly
well intentioned people support both positions, and ill-intentioned
people also support both positions. The attitude in this newsgroup
until now is one of mutual distrust and hate, each side assuming that
the other is inherently evil and coercive. The benefits and/or
liabilities of abortion are rarely mentioned, and when mentioned
are commonly swept away in the tide of emotional rhetoric.
It is also clear that, generally speaking, only people
who care read this newsgroup. It is further clear that most
people who read this newsgroup have made up their minds,
set their attitudes in concrete, and given up on convincing
the other side of the correctness of their position. They
are willing to rail and roar in defense of their position,
using emotional rhetoric, in an attempt to sway the occasional
undecided person who happens into the newsgroup, despite the
fact that there are, very likely, few people who fit
such a description who haven't already typed 'U', and forgotten
the issue.
Those people who do not believe that abortion is proper,
or who believe that it is a grave religious/moral offense/outrage,
should not have abortions. If they wish to follow the teachings
of their religion or philosophy, they should be free to
do so without interference. They should also be responsible
for all the human lives that they create, regardless of the
condition or eventual outcome of these lives.
Those who feel abortion is good, or that it has positive
benefits, or who have no religious/moral/ethical objections,
should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not
they should have (if required) an abortion. If they do
decide to create a human life, they should be responsible as
above. In the event that there is a penalty for refusing to
support a human life, they should be responsible for that
penalty, also.
In short, I do not see that the question is resolvable,
now or ever, and I think that neither group has moral, legal,
ethical, or religious rights that allow them to determine the behavior
of the other group. In a sense, I'm begging the question, yes,
and in a sense I'm advocating "pro-choice", but what I advocate
most strongly is that BOTH sides should be allowed to practice
<on themselves> whatever they believe, as long as there
is no major demonstrable damage to human society that exceeds
the costs of the debate about abortion, including the
religious, human, and economic strife brought about by
one group of individuals asserting its beliefs on a non-consenting
group.
I hereby propose that net.abortion be redirected into
/dev/null.
----------
Sincerely, but with little hope of consensus,
rabbit!jj