Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site stolaf.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!stolaf!densinge From: densinge@stolaf.UUCP (Charles W. Densinger) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: A suggestion...(long) Message-ID: <2064@stolaf.UUCP> Date: Thu, 25-Oct-84 22:35:48 EDT Article-I.D.: stolaf.2064 Posted: Thu Oct 25 22:35:48 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 27-Oct-84 04:23:46 EDT Organization: St. Olaf College, Northfield MN Lines: 130 I have a suggestion. I have noticed that the abortion issue is subject to many heated and varied opinions, and because of this ideas are slow in getting across. I think that part of the difficulty lies in the fact that the abortion issue is really a complex mixture of many related issues or sub-issues. For example, the question of whether there is moral legitimacy for abortion is different from the question of legalization. Also related are issues of women's rights, economic aid, religious beliefs and the mix thereof with politics, the question of when a fetus becomes a human life (or, rather, perhaps, when a fetus obtains civil rights and/or moral significance as a human being), etc., etc., etc... When I say I am pro-choice (which, indeed, I am), I am speaking only of my belief about the legalization of abortion. Any of my moral, spiritual, personal, and even some political (i.e., the politics of feminism) views are kept separate. The abortion issue, as the dialogue on this newsgroup demonstrates, is very complicated. In all of the categories listed above, I find that my views are constantly challenged, modified, expanded--which is what this group is good for. I have, however, worked out what I think is a pretty sound defense for the continued legalization of abortion. What follows is essentially it: The central question in this issue is "What role ought our government to play in moral issues?" I argue none. The laws of this country are not concerned with morality, but rather they deal exclusively with the regulation of commerce, the protection of property, the defense of our nation, and the protection of the rights of citizens (as defined by law). If we look to the writings of the founders of this nation, especially to The Federalist Papers, we find that the cornerstone of the U.S. Constitution is the principle of the self-interested individual. An enduring government, it was conceived, can best be founded by taking a "least common denominator" of human behavior and creating a rationally organized political system which is based upon that trait. This principle is self-interest. Hence the elaborate system of checks and balances and the distribution of power incorporated into the fabric of our political structure. Hence the focus upon the rights of the individual citizen who is encouraged to vote for leaders who will represent his interests. In recent decades, we see economic legislation to counter-balance the inequalities which may arise in a capitalist economy; hence welfare, social security, medicare, food stamps, etc. The theory is: keep the individual reasonably happy and with the personal freedoms necessary to allow him/her to protect his/her own interests (and those of the family), keep the powerful from getting too much power, and the system will never fail. Don't fool yourself if you are thinking that our laws are based on morality. The chief function of any government is to preserve itself. Ours is no exception. What makes America so complicated is that we often get religion and morality mixed into civic issues. God-Democracy-Capitalism-America the Beautiful is often one big complicated blur. Just take a look at the political campaigns going on now. Go to Disneyland and hear Honest Abe's robot talk. This isn't all bad, but it often serves to confuse the lines between spheres in which government is designed to be involved and spheres in which it is not. It just so happened, fortunately for us, that the founders of our nation saw a way in which to set up a government which does a good job of self-preservation by protecting the rights of individuals. Before going further with this matter, I would like to add to the above discussion on the legislation of moral issues. If I were asked what I thought was the most significant element in moral life, I would say choice. If we *cannot* choose--that is, if our choice is imposed upon us--we are no longer responsible. Without responsibility moral choice means nothing because there is no weight nor accountability. Without *free choice*, morality looses significance because it is precisely in our freedom to choose evil which makes our choice of the good significant. The tension in making moral decisions, the pain and struggle in which we are engaged, is precisely what makes them valuable to us. The moral dictates of law do not facilitate spiritual or moral development; they stifle them. In this sense, I think that even if it were the object of our government to legislate on moral issues, it would be required by morality and spirituality not to do so. (Herein also lies my argument against fundamentalist religious dogma, but that's a matter for net.religion...) It is clear to me, then, that the mother is entitled to make her own choice free of legal intervention, as long as she is not, in so doing, usurping the rights of others. The sticky part of this issue for me is whether or not the unborn fetus is entitled to be protected by law. On the one hand, it is clear to me that an unborn fetus is a potential human being, one that, if all goes well, will become an individual citizen under the laws of this nation. On the other hand, I know that biologically, until birth the child and mother are united physically and that the fetus truly is a part of the mother's body. The way that I tend to view the issue now is that after the first trimester of pregnancy it is probably best not to allow abortions unless medical complications make it necessary to do so to protect the life of the mother. During the first trimester there is really no chance that the fetus could survive outside of the womb, and it is so premature in its development that it is difficult to conceive of it as something separate from the mother's body. I am not entirely comfortable with this rationale, but it is how I view the issue presently. If you have comments or insights, either post them publicly or mail to me directly. -Chuck Densinger @ St. Olaf College {decvax|ihnp4}!stolaf!densinge P.S. I must voice my energetic agreement with Don Stryker's posting, *ad hoc philosopers*. I believe that insofar as abortion is a civic issue, debate of the sort I have introduced is valuable and necessary (for that is how our legal system works). But dry philosophising for the sake of masturbating our egoes--the sort which [aaack, I cannot hold my tounge] Jeff Sonntag is engaged in in his *Hypothetical Question* debate--is entirely useless. Ultimately, abortion is a personal, individual, and un-universalizable issue, and must therefore be dealt with anew each time the issue arises. The attempt to come to some sort of pat philosophical stance is antithetical the processes of grieving and decision-making which women *and men* confronted with a situation in which abortion is an option must face. "Every man [human] who has not tasted the bitterness of despair has missed the significance of life." -Soren Kierkegaard