Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: The Myth of Neutrality
Message-ID: <3259@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Jul-84 10:37:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbscc.3259
Posted: Mon Jul 16 10:37:23 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 17-Jul-84 02:04:02 EDT
References: <179@ssc-bee.UUCP> <776@pyuxn.UUCP>, <786@pyuxn.UUCP> <146@uwmacc.UUCP>, <766@ihuxn.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <SCCS>, Columbus
Lines: 53

}
}>From Paul DuBois:
}>For example:
}>
}>A person elected to office who holds private views
}>favoring abortion because he/she is a feminist attempts to
}>have those views codified in the current legal code, by (for
}>instance) legislative or judicial means.  No media outcry.
}>
}>A person elected to office who holds private views
}>opposing abortion because he/she is a Christian attempts to
}>have those views codified in the current legal code, by (for
}>instance) legislative or judicial means.  Whoa!! Wait a minute,
}>now!  Don't impose your beliefs on us!!

} Response from Yosi Hoshen:
}I don't think that these examples are symmetrical.  The pro-choicers
}do not require that pro-lifers should go an abortion.  They are
}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.

The example only seems unsymmetrical if you assume there is no third party
here.  Pro-lifers are against abortion for the same reason most people
are against parents killing their born children.

}When a pro-choice woman favors an
}abortion she favors her abortion.  Whereas, when a pro-lifer opposes 
}an abortion, he/she opposes another person abortion.

Who's abortion does a pro-choice man favor?  Pro-choice groups tend
to favor tax money being spent on abortion for the poor (certain minority
groups have large numbers in that category) and as an answer to the
overcrowding in third world countries.  This could be interpreted as
saying that we would all be a lot better off if there were less of these
people around.  Such advocation of abortion does nothing to raise
the standard of living (or future hope) in these people.  It only increases
their mortality rate as a people, which is often the main impetus for
having so many children in the first place.

}If the pro-choicers
}would demand that every woman is required to have an abortion then 
}Paul's [DuBois] examples would have a valid point.

But then they wouldn't be "pro-choicers", would they?  It seems that, by
definition, you can't oppose anything a "pro-choicer" does.

-- 

Paul Dubuc 		{cbosgd, ihnp4} !cbscc!pmd

  The true light that enlightens every one was coming
  into the world...		(John 1:9)