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.abortion Subject: Re: The existence of net.abortion proves abortion should be legal Message-ID: <3524@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 27-Aug-84 16:40:31 EDT Article-I.D.: cbscc.3524 Posted: Mon Aug 27 16:40:31 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 28-Aug-84 00:33:33 EDT References: <181@looking.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus Lines: 83 >(Brad Templeton) >Now you'll note I didn't say it proves that abortion is good or bad, >simply that it should be legal. But are you then saying that the question of whether something is good or bad is irrelevant to whether or not it should be legal? >The existence of net.abortion proves one thing. That there is a large >controversy over the issue. It shows there are two large camps on either >side, with some sitting in the middle. It shows plainly that the issues >involved are intangible and highly subject to debate. Are the issues really intangible? I think they are so only to those who want them to be. Maybe the existence of net.abortion proves that there are some to those people around too. >Now the maxim of a free society is to err on the side of freedom in a >situation can can't be clearly decided. No matter how much one side may >claim it, the issue isn't "obvious." The assumption here is that both sides of the issue are clearly, and without bias, presented to the public. The issue certainly is not as obvious as night and day. But it doesn't follow that the issue cannot be resolved or that the difficulty is inherent in the issue itself. Whose freedom do we err on the side of? The "reproductive freedom" of certain men and women, or any freedom at all for the unborn? > >Thus the law is not competent to judge on this issue. Only individuals >are. When there is no proof, it is not the province of the law to >interfere. The maxim of the law is "innocent until proven guilty beyond >a reasonable doubt." I disagree that there is no proof. I think there is sufficient evidence to consider the fetus a human being. I would think that the burden of proof to the contrary should rest on those who want to kill it as part of their freedom of choice. Something like "human until proven not a human beyond a reasonable doubt". Have abortion rights been won on the basis of such proof? I think not. The court cases that struck down abortion laws did not even consider the issue, only the rights of the woman. > >This rule requires the unanimous decision of 12 peers of the accused. >It's clear that this would normally never happen except in a clearly >biased jury. What do you mean by "normally never happen"? > >So if you believe in the free society legal system, and the maxim stated >above, you must conclude that abortion should be legal. I believe that freedom carries with it the responsibility to uphold the legitimate rights of others. I don't think your conclusion follows from your premises. >You need not state it is moral. So can we say it is immoral? >You may campaign with vigour against it. You may >take steps to ensure public money is not used. There are some who think that lack of government funds for abortion inhibits the choice of poor women. Although many of them are "personally opposed" to abortion, they are publically in favor of all of us (even others who are personally opposed) personally helping to pay for abortions through our personal income taxes. (Lot of "personal" stuff there.) >But you may not make it illegal If someone thinks they have good reason for thinking that abortion is the killing of humans who have a right to live, I wouldn't blame them in the least for trying to make it illegal. How can you? -- Paul Dubuc {cbosgd,ihnp4}!cbscc!pmd The true light that enlightens every one was coming into the world... (John 1:9)