Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!ihuxn!jho
From: jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: The Myth of Neutrality
Message-ID: <767@ihuxn.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Jul-84 09:26:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihuxn.767
Posted: Tue Jul 17 09:26:01 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Jul-84 02:44:44 EDT
References: <179@ssc-bee.UUCP> <776@pyuxn.UUCP>, <786@pyuxn.UUCP> <146@uwmacc.UUCP>, <766@ihuxn.UUCP> <3259@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 55

Paul Dubuc = <


} 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.

The above response exemplifies the attempts of some religionists to impose
their definition for when-life-begins on others who do not subscribe 
to this definition.

}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.

Paul is misinterpreting the pro-choice position.  The pro-choice
position does not call for an abortion as a method of birth control.
It calls for the right of every women to make a personal choice
on abortion.  A choice that does not have to depend on
the wealth or the origin of the woman.  (I agree with Paul that
we do not have right to force abortion on third world women.
However, I am not familiar with any group promoting such an approach.)

}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.

You hit it on the nail. The pro-lifers' position is indefensible, because
it advocates the imposition of one group moral/religious code  on others. 
If pro-lifers would use the moral appeal approach rather than attempting
to coerce their will through legislation, I don't think anyone would
complain.  Trying to convince people rather than coercing them is more
likely to reduce the number of abortions.
-- 

Yosi Hoshen
Bell Laboratories
Naperville, Illinois
(312)-979-7321
Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho