[Peace-discuss] Fw: CCHCC Annual Dinner & Adbook -- AWARE

[E. Wayne Johnson]

Ron Szoke wrote:
> This page was sent to you by:  r-szoke at illinois.edu 
>
> INTERNATIONAL / AMERICAS   | March 28, 2009 
> Amid Abuse of Girls in Brazil, Abortion Debate Flares 
> By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO 
>
> The case of a 9-year-old who had an abortion after saying she was raped has 
> revived a debate over abortion rights. 
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/28/world/americas/28brazil.html?
> emc=eta1
>
> Comments:  
>
> 1.  Is "pro-life" an euphemism?  For what, exactly?
>   
Pro-life is anti-abortion.  Some of the opposition calls it anti-choice.

Pro-life means to me that I support the right to life, and therefore a 
future, for all people.

> 2.  Is all surgery on female bodies "violence against women?"   On only on 
> pregnant women?  Or only on certain parts of pregnant women?  How do you 
> decide?  (Suppose the surgery is to remove a tapeworm.)
>   
Minor surgery is when they cut on someone else.  If it involves cutting 
on me, its a Big Deal.

Wikipaedia says:  /Violence/ is the expression of physical force against 
self or other, compelling action against one's will on pain of being hurt.

I would suppose then that surgery is seldom violence against a woman.  
Mutilation is something else.

The baby that she carries and nurtures in the womb is not part of her.  
It's easy to prove.  Check
the baby's genetic material.  Clearly the baby is not part of the 
woman's body.

Generally it is not a good analogy to compare a baby with a tapeworm.  
Usually we reserve
that analogy until after the baby has several years of age on it.

> 3.  Note that my question was:  Are there any good philosophical arguments for 
> the view that abortion is NOT wrong?  It was NOT a request for a general 
> argument in support of abortion, only of abortion RIGHTS -- a very different 
> matter.  There was no response to the question.  
>   
It has been made clear time and again that the right to liberty does not 
include the right to harm others,
particularly not the right to harm the innocent.
> 4.  Once again, we have seen only slogans, doctrines & evasions on the 
> question of how far the "pro-life" people are willing to go in preventing or 
> punishing abortion.  Should those who engage in it  ultimately have to face the 
> guns & billyclubs of the police for having broken the law?  What if the woman 
> has been raped, is a victim of incest, or her life is endangered by the 
> pregnancy?
>   
Endangerment of life by pregnancy appears to be a myth.  The source of 
the baby's genetic material is no excuse for killing it.
> Will we now receive yet another dose of slogans,  metaphysical doctrines, 
> evasions, red herrings & idealistic effusions  in response?  Watch this space.  
>   
Who knows?
> -- Ron
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090328/294ca306/attachment.htm