From: John Burgeson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Oct 18 2002 - 13:47:37 EDT
I wrote: "I refer you to Kathleen Parker's "Abortion is more than meets the
eye"article in the major newspapers this week. She and I "belong to that
soft-spoken cadre of people who oppose abortion but support choice. We are
the bane of both sides of the debate ... ."
Adrian asked: "Just out of curiosity, what precisely is this
I refer you again to Parker's article. She describes it quite well.
Based on the rather obvious (and agreed to) fact that we really do not know,
and will never know, the "exact point" (if one exists) when the developing
entity becomes a human being with a soul (indeed, we do not even know if a
"soul" exists), I argue the moral ethic that abortion therefore must be
considered to very likely be a "wrong," and therefore, in the absence of any
other reasons, ought to be avoided.
I also argue that there ARE other factors to consider, such as rape and
incest situations, and situations involving the pregnant female's health,
and situations involving severe fetal deformities.
I argue also that some of these factors are such that the possibility of a
law regulating abortion is simply not possible to construct.
I argue also that in the case of rape and incest, the female is in a
situation she did not herself choose. Morally, this can be argued as the
case of the "attached violinist."
I argue also that the American electorate is sufficiently split on this
issue that any law will do more mischief than it will help.
One part of the issue that interests me is the so-called "Partial Birth
Abortion" issue. The phrase seems to have been chosen by the pro-life
groups, and it was a good political choice on their part for it so easily
polarizes the issue. As I understand, the technical term is "Dialation and
On my web site, page 2, section 9, I have placed the testimonies of six
women who testified before Congress about this procedure just a few years
ago. For those who favor a government law prohibiting the procedure, I ask
them to read these testimonies.
I argue, therefore, that bringing a man in a blue suit carrying a large gun
into the doctor's office to make sure a doctor and his/her patient are
following some law correctly is a moral wrong.
Finally, I argue that the pro-life and the pro-choice people both ought to
cut down on the rhetoric (I know -- I used some just above) and get together
to see what aspects of the issue they might agree upon. Both sides, I
assume, favor adoption as an alternative. That much they could work together
Internet access plans that fit your lifestyle -- join MSN.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Oct 20 2002 - 01:54:50 EDT