[Peace-discuss] Re: [UCprogressives] Re: Pro-choice [wasRe: letter to my former comrades]

[Carl Estabrook]

I don't think you can be absolutist about the matter, Esther.  Certainly
it's wrong to conclude that the government should never "have the power to
force you to make any medical decision at all" -- regarding the spread of
communicable disease, for example. The question is, of course, What
"personal, moral decisions" are matters of public policy, but some surely
are -- forcing a typhoid carrier to be treated, say, or criminalizing the
knowing spread of AIDS.

It's hard to see how the ending of human life should fall outside the
purview of government, so most of those who hold abortion to be ethical
deny that that's what abortion does.

Regards, Carl


On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Esther Patt wrote:

> Should the government have the power to force you to make a medical
> decision that threatens your life?  Should the government have the power
> to force you to make a medical decision that threatens your health?
> Should the government have the power to force you to make any medical
> decision at all?  Folks who oppose abortion because of their religious
> or personal moral beliefs often confuse, as Carl does, a personal, moral
> decision with the question of public policy.
>
> Carl may believe that a woman should be willing to die, lose a kidney,
> undergo major surgery, increase her risk of stroke, or any number of
> other risks rather than stop a zygote or embryo from developing into a
> fetus and ultimately a baby.  If he were the one who was pregnant, I
> would support fully his right to make that decision without government
> interference.
>
> The public policy question is whether government should force every
> woman who becomes pregnant to carry to term because some people believe
> that a zygote is a human being.  Most people in the U.S. are pro-choice
> because they do not want government to have that power.  Esther Patt
> Proud to be Pro-Choice
>