Re: virus: RE: Abortion (formerly AIDS Meme)
Thu, 31 Oct 1996 01:33:01 -0600 (CST)

On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Hakeeb A. Nandalal wrote:

> Ken Sartor wrote :-
> > ..............
> > ..............
> > No, but neither would i support a church "Order of the Sacred Egg".
> > I do not see abortion opponents as having tyrannical sentiments.
> > If the government was to allow infanticide during the first 13 (i like
> > odd numbers ;) ) months after birth, would you oppose or support this?
> > Why?
> >
> > Perhaps some subjects are difficult to come to agreement on? Neither
> > side dishonest or evil or tyrannical - just disagreeing.
> The point of the right to abortion is the privacy of a woman's body.
Killing someone after birth, regardless of
> how many months have passed, is a different issue entirely as in
capital punishment. >

No. The division point of physical birth has no relevance [other than
precreated ideology] to this question. If one is going to draw lines
like that, there are only two ways: reasoning at least hundred times deeper
than what is cited, or fiat. And ideology [like what I see here] IS fiat.

If there is a right to privacy specified in the US Constitution, cite the
reference. I have read the thing, and I don't recall seeing it once.
Law enforcement definitely doesn't respect it, and such evidence IS
allowed in the courts! Actually, I doubt that any nation is that
"enlightened"--oops, *suicidal*.

> Slavery was abolished because society (not the slaves) decided that it was unacceptable to own someone.
> Similarly, it is wrong for the State or anyone else for that matter to tell a woman "you have no say in what
> goes on in your body". Every tenet of our civilization points to the sovereignty of the individual's body. I
> have not found a single cause for forcing a woman to have a child which she does not want which is so critical
> to the State's interest that it necessitates enforcement by the law. All anti-abortion laws previously in
> effect were the result of legislation passed by Christian legislatures with Christian popular support.

No. Slavery was abolished [in the US] because the minority who had the
might waged war on the majority without the might. The North had MAJOR
logistical advantages! "Society" was actively defied then, and the full
reshaping of US society to recognize this has NOT been completed yet!

> Every anti-abortion group, to the best of my knowledge, is rooted in
religion. There are no valid secular
> reasons to prevent abortions. By thinking of a fetus as a baby, we are
using hindsight, we see a happy child
> playing in a field and our parental instincts cause us to be repulsed
by the thought of then "killing" that
> child. This is crooked thinking which must be straightened out by
clear logic : a fetus is not a child, its
> rights do not exceed the mother's. To give a fetus superior rights,
we're declaring the mother's rights null
> and void. In every other aspect of civilization the rights of a woman
are paramount except when she is
> pregnant. To me, this sound like a form of punishment for an
unfortunate biological-function albatross.

I would hate to overgeneralize, from one instance [what is in front of my
eyes] that every pro-abortion/pro-choice group [The two labels are
operationally equivalent] is rooted in religious reasons.

> Have you ever seen a religious fanatic shouting in the face of a
scared woman trying to access an abortion
> clinic? Would you say that that behavior is a tad tyrannical? If all
the anti-abortionists did was stay home
> and brood, I wouldn't even bring up the subject. The problem lies with
people being physically obstructed and
> mentally abused. The famous "gag" order preventing federally funded
clinics from advising women on abortion is > part of the abuse.

And *A* primary use of the anti-racketeering acts is prosecuting an
extreme practice of the First Amendment, above. As KMO put it recently,
many sections of the US Constitution [like the First Amendment citation
above] are anti-enforced, as in actively treated as crimes.

The Federal gag order is a direct result of "the State shall not
interfere with the practice of religion". I cannot call the example you
cite a religious practice--it is highly anti-religious.