NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/talk/abortion/54698

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-08 | 5.4 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54698 talk.religion.misc:25588 alt.atheism:25423
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!olivea!pagesat!spssig.spss.com!adams
From: [e-mail] (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Message-ID: <root.726528897@spssig>
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:34:57 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <root.726503770@spssig> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Net News Admin)
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Lines: 92

[e-mail] (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

>In article <root.726503770@spssig> [e-mail] (Steve Adams) writes:
>
>>Yes.  I oppose abortion.  I *personally* believe abortion to be wrong, and
>>to be killing unborn children.  That view is based PURELY on religious
>>belief, and my understanding of the process and meaning of conception in
>>light of my Christian  belief.  What I *REFUSE* to do is impose that view
>>on any other person.  Our system of government is NOT meant to be
>>religious, and is meant to protect the *INDIVIDUAL* rights of each person,
>>as defined under our Constitution.  Under our laws, a fetus is NOT a
>>person.
>
>Suppose you had been born under the Nazi government.  Replace "abortion"
>with "exterminating the Jewish race" and replace "fetus" with Jew.  Or
>pretend you were born in the U.S. 120 years ago and pretend this deals with
>the Indians.

In both cases, I can identify a person who has rights that are being
violated.  In each case, there is an individual who is agreed upon by all
to be alive, irrespective of any 'lower forms' arguments.

I realize the distinction is narrow, but my personal beliefs are founded in
religion...and as such, in our secular society, I do not believe it to be
proper to impose those on others.  Can you demonstrate to me a purely
secular anti-abortion position that accurately protects the rights of the
woman to her life?  And with respect to maintaining her health?  I have yet
to see such a defense.  The problem here is with conflicting liberties.

Our system is based on individual liberty...the Nazi's wasn't.  And the
issue with American Indians had to do with the refusal of *some* people to
apply those individual liberties to persons different from them in race.
Same goes for slavery.

There are no problems with conflicting liberties when referring to a born
person.  Each and every person has rights that must be protected, including
"life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."  In the case of the unborn, a
conflict exists.

>>I have said over and over again that I would in each and every case counsel
>>against abortion, except when the mother's life was in danger, or in cases
>>of rape and incest.  Even in the last two, I would personally have a
>>difficult time recomending abortion.
>
>I can see why you have difficulty.  I really don't understand how someone
>can hold that abortion is murder, and that it is wrong to commit murder,
>and still hold that it is okay to murder unborn children who are the
>product of rape or incest.  Is it okay to exterminate grown adults who
>are the product of rape or incest?  James Robinson's mother was raped and
>had him.  I am sure that many would agree that the world is a better place
>because of James Robison, especially the thousands of children and adults
>in Angola and other nations whose lives he helped to save.  People who
>are the product of rape have intrinsic value and can make contributions
>to society, too.

By legal definition, abortion is not murder.  Self defense is not murder,
either.  All killing is not murder.  Our definitions of murder are based on
the deprivation of certain rights (life in this case).  There are no
conflicting rights in the case of murder.  Self defense *is* a conflicting
right, and as such, deaths caused be self defense are mitigated by a
conflicting liberty interest.

In the case of a pregnant women, she has a liberty interest in protecting
herself medically (both physical and mental), financially and socially.
The extent to which she can exercise these liberty interests are limited by
the conflicting liberty interest of the unborn child.

In all cases, I would have to say that the bible permits abortion to save
the life of the mother.  Why?  Because of numerous times in which we see
God's laws held in abeyance in order to promote a greater good.  (cf healing
on the sabath, eating the bread of the presence, &c).  So God has allowed,
in our interpretation, and by the words of Christ and actions of David and
his soldiers, the violation of the letter of the law to achieve a greater
good.

Beyond that, I personally oppose abortions in all cases, but believe that
(under our system of laws and my understanding of conflicting liberty
interests) pre-viability abortions should be available.

Your example of killing a grown adult who is a product of rape is extreme.
James Robinson, once born has a liberty interest, and rights, which do not
conflict directly with anyone else.  Prior to birth, there are possible
conflicting interests.  His mother, by the grace of God, had the courage
and fortitude to carry to term.  I applaud her.  But that in no way
deprives other women of their own rights.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   [e-mail]                                  Phone: [phone]
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   [phone]