(And I always thought the "woman's right to privacy" argument for abortion was flaky. Accepting such an argument, wouldn't infanticide be equally protected by a woman's right to privacy?)
--Tim May
Whoa! This begs a thoughful response, but I don't have time right now. Might it suffice to suggest that a privacy claim -- a demand for control over what concerns her, her alone, or (on balance) her more than any other -- seems reasonable to extend to both contraception and early abortion? For many of us, by the same logic, and with the same moral comfort.
[ more discussion of abortion snippped. ]
To my mind, any attempt to control what is done to the woman's body (by her choice) while the prospective child is but a bit of enhanced potential, much much less than a viable child, is an unconstitutional and morally-invalid attempt by others (the state, the church, the country club) to pre-empt her will, and prescribe or dictate a wholly new value system for her.
Vin McLellan + The Privacy Guild + <vin@shore.net> 53 Nichols St., Chelsea, MA 02150 USA <617> 884-5548
Let's not start this. Tim wasn't arguing for or against abortion; he made no comments about abortion. His comment was that the _argument_ used to "legalize" abortion was unconvincing to him. If we are going to discuss privacy, that's fine. It we are going to discuss abortion, there are better fora. -- Marshall Marshall Clow Aladdin Systems <mailto:mclow@mailhost2.csusm.edu> Warning: Objects in calendar are closer than they appear.