[clue-talk] abolish abortion in america

[Angelo Bertolli]

David Rudder wrote:
> David L. Willson wrote:
>   
>> It's time for you to defend your position or
>> abandon it. 
>> Answer the 5 or 6 questions.  Describe a distinction between abortion and
>> murder in real, practicable terms.  Why is abortion NOT the wholesale
>>     
> violation of the
>   
>> human rights that I say it is?
>>
>>     
>
> I'm pro-choice.  My religion, Judaism, says that life begins at first
> breath.  Abortion is still legal in my country.  My views jibe with the
> ruling law in both religion and state.  I don't feel the need to justify
> them to anyone.
>   

No offense, but this is exactly why it's not a religious issue.  The 
fact of human life cannot depend on a culture, tradition, or religion.  
It is either human or not.  It is not up to the Christians to decide for 
the rest of the world that it happens at conception or Jews to decide it 
happens at first breath.  A human is a human regardless of religious 
beliefs or what we want.

> It's been 35 years since Roe v. Wade.  The Republicans recently had
> control of all 3 branches of the government for years, with no change.
> If they'd put in half the effort into banning abortion as they did
> getting us into Iraq, Roe v Wade would have been toast.
>   

Exactly.  Which is why, personally I think the abortion issue has little 
to do with the Democrat vs Republican debate.  The law on the books 
isn't going to change (since there is no law), and anyone hoping that 
Roe v Wade will be overturned is just thinking wishfully.  The Supreme 
Court tends to be more independent from party politics.  Neither 
Democrats or Republicans are going to change this situation at least for 
the near future.  The issue is "settled" except for the religious folk 
of the Republicans which is why they just need to give them lip service 
every time and blame the failure to do anything on someone else.

> Simply banning abortion won't work.  We've been through this, and the
> toll in life of grown women was horrendous.  You feel very strongly
> about the loss of infant life.  The pro-choice community feels very
> strongly about the loss of adult life.  You can argue about which is
> worse or which is deserved, but *you'll never convince the other side to
> accept the deaths of their friends*.
>   

Yes, again right on the first point.  There cannot simply be a "ban 
abortion" solution.  It must be some kind of comprehensive solution that 
takes care of the need for abortions, discourages abortions, and early 
detection for abortions of cells (as opposed to humans).  This is one of 
the reasons why I think the current pro-life movement will continue to 
fail:  it's focused on more or less a "belief-based" goal instead of a 
moral one.  To that end the only thing that matters to most people is to 
"ban abortion" as if the law itself was the only important thing and not 
the fact if abortions are occurring.  In fact, I would go as far as to 
say the structure needs to be in place long before restrictions on 
abortions can be.  Or we're asking for more problems.

Wrong on the second point.  The pro-choice community feels very strongly 
about the "right to choose."  It's a civil liberty kind of thing that 
says the mother should be able to do whatever she wants with her body.  
Most pro-life people acknowledge some need for abortions to save the 
mother's life.  Abortion to save a life is not a arguing point.

> We keep on talking about it, though.  Since there's no rational way of
> winning the argument, the tactics of the right has become nasty.
> Without some concrete way of fixing the problem, the only "discussion"
> is one where the left is compared to murderers and slave-masters.
>
> I said it well in the email that I quoted earlier:
>
> "Look, no one wants to kill babies.  The abortion debate (not the
> question, the debate) has gotten out of hand and is no longer about
> abortion.  It's about cheap theater.  It's about mobilizing your base."
>   

Yes, but you should include that no one wants to restrict personal 
liberties of women.  Well, I'll admit there's probably a bigger 
percentage of pro-life people who simply feel that people shouldn't "get 
off free" without having to pay for having sex before marriage than 
there is a percentage of pro-choice people who see human life as 
socially expendable.  But I think (hope) that most of both sides don't 
want to kill babies or remove rights from women.

And I agree, no one seems to be focused on the real issue at hand.

Angelo