[Peace-discuss] Re: Pro choice works for me...

[C. G. Estabrook]

That is of course the issue, Jenifer. Most (not all) of those who hold
that abortion is generally ethical do so by denying that we're human
before we're born.  But when I look at a newborn child, I can't believe
that the rules about killing a human being, which apply to it now, only
began to apply when it passed through the birth canal.

I do agree that it would be inconsistent to say that those rules don't
apply to those of us who were conceived by rape or incest, wicked as those
things are.  And I also agree on the need for sex education and free,
available birth control.

I don't however think it's helpful to employ religious language in the
discussion.  Abortion -- like war, poverty, racism, capital punishment and
euthanasia -- is an ethical and political issue.

I also think that the actual social consequences of the Supreme Court's
1973 decision (to say nothing of its social sources) have been obscured by
ideological commitment. It is, as you say, a class issue, and Nixon's
Supreme Court (not a particularly liberal bunch) seem to have regarded
abortion as an alternative to the demand for justice by those who were not
"well-born." In those days of great fear of "population explosion," there
was also a racial fear of a burgeoning under-class demanding "welfare,"
which could be reduced by abortion.  We got at the same time the
Malthusian policies promoted around the world by Republican and Democrat
administrations -- and objected to by popular groups, who said that the
American government thought it was "easier to kill a guerrilla in the womb
than in the hills."

Morning-after pills (and related issues, such as the harvesting of stem
cells) raise difficult issues about when rules about ending human life
begin to apply.  Obviously we should err on the side of caution -- just as
we wouldn't drive over something in the road that might be a human being.
But what that means in these matters is difficult.

Regards, Carl


On Mon, 31 May 2004, jencart wrote:

> What "children," Carl? Most of us view them as embryos and
> foetuses......But if you view them as children, and abortion as
> murder, then of course you will hope that fewer women choose to
> terminate their pregnancies.  BTW, how come folks who feel as you do
> often make an exception for rape and incest? That really frosts me --
> like it's okay to terminate those pregnancies, because the results of
> those acts would produce offspring w/ a double dose of original sin,
> plus women who get pregnant w/o those excuses must carry to term, and
> then deal w/ raising an unwanted child -- great for the kid -- or put
> their baby up for adoption..... serves them right for sinning!  And
> how come so many pro-lifers are as against sex education and free,
> available birth control, as they are against abortion?  Exactly whose
> lives are they "pro?"
> 
> The Old Testament is chock full of sacrifices -- and the New Testament
> has, of course, the final and ultimate one.  If men got pregnant,
> they'd somehow fit pregnancy termination into that theme, I have no
> doubt.  Or if women had written the bible.....
> 
> On a practical level, women have ALWAYS tried to terminate unwanted
> pregnancies.  Before it was legal in the US, women of means and
> connections could find safe, and maybe even legal abortions outside
> the US, and others could not..... Even now, w/ abortion in the US safe
> and legal (last time I looked, tho' that'll be history if Bush and the
> Christian Coalition have their way....) it is still, unfairly, beyond
> the reach of many.  Think how many women's lives would be SAVED if
> abortion were not only safe and legal, but affordable and readily
> available to ALL women, so that no woman had to risk her life to
> terminate a pregnancy!  It's not only a gender issue, it's a class
> issue as well.
> 
> And isn't it high time the morning-after pill were available OTC?  
> The excuses for keeping it a prescription drug are ridiculous....
> another class distinction, BTW, tho' some make a case for its also
> being a gender issue, as it is women exclusively who become pregnant
> but can't be trusted to deal w/ their own birth control issues.....
> 
> I don't expect to totally change your mind, Carl, but I do hope that a
> little change in your thinking, a little shadow of doubt might one day
> occur.  Kucinich did some soul-searching, listened to many others, and
> saw the issue in a different light.
> 
> Okay, I'm done. The rest of you folks can take it from here!  (Or
> not..)
> 
> Jenifer C.
> -------------------------------------------------------------- 
> 
> The logical maxim applies: "What is gratuitously asserted may be
> gratuitously denied"...
> 
> What sort of society is it that says to people, "No, we won't provide
> an education, a job, housing, medical care or a reliable income -- but
> we will allow you to end your children's lives without penalty, so
> long as you do it in a timely fashion"?
> 
> It's a society in which everything, including human life, is a
> commodity -- you can have as much of it as you can afford.  It's a
> society in which the Clintons and Bushes can end Iraqi lives with
> impunity, and say a similar thing to soldiers, with (now) Iraqis
> substituted for children.
>